State v. Young

Citations

• 114 La. 686
• 38 So. 517
• 1905 La. LEXIS 524

Syllabus

<p>RAPE — TRIAL—IMPROPER ARGUMENT — APPEAL— OCCURRENCES AT TRIAL.</p> <p>1. Utterances of the prosecution classed as epithets, although out of place, will not afford ground to set aside a verdict, unless it is manifest 'that they were calculated to influence the jury. The average juror is taken to have common sense, sufficient not to be influenced by epithets uttered in the heat of debate. Courts must give jurors credit for ordinary intelligence.</p> <p>2. Much is left to the trial judge in matters relating to utterances in argument. He is expected to put a stop to words calculated to injure. It will not be presumed that he failed to exercise proper authority in the premises.</p> <p>3. A district attorney may refer to the sincerity of the prosecuting witness, and reasonably comment regarding her appearance and conduct on the witness stand.</p> <p>4. There was difference in statement between that of the district attorney, his assistant, and the court, on the one hand, and counsel for the defendant, on the other. It does not appear that any attempt was made to explain away this difference by taking testimony under the statute which authorizes the taking of such testimony in case of such difference. The weight of testimony is with the court and the prosecuting attorneys.</p> <p>5. The court was not called upon to instruct the jury, in the charge, to disregard any of the utterances of counsel.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>