23 So. 331 (La. 1898), 12,735, State v. Richard
|Citation:||23 So. 331, 50 La.Ann. 210|
|Opinion Judge:||BREAUX, J.|
|Party Name:||STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ULYSSES RICHARD|
|Attorney:||M. J. Cunningham, Attorney General, and R. Lee Garland, District Attorney (P. A. Simmons, Jr., of Counsel), for Plaintiff, Appellee. E. P. Veazie, for Defendant, Appellant.|
|Case Date:||March 07, 1898|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Louisiana|
Submitted February 26, 1898.
APPEAL from the Eleventh Judicial District Court for the Parish of Acadia. Dupre, J.
The question before us for determination is whether the preferment by a grand jury of an indictment (if found without any evidence as to the guilt of the accused) may be proved by the prosecuting officer.
The facts are that one indictment numbered 458 had been quashed in this case. The grand jury returned a second indictment No. 462 [50 La.Ann. 211] on January 6, 1898. The next day prior to plea pleaded the defendant interposed the objection that the grand jury entered this indictment without having heard any evidence whatever.
On the trial of the motion to quash the District Attorney was examined
as a witness, and was asked if he was present when the indictment was found, to which he replied that he withdrew from the deliberation when the jury's vote was taken.
He was then asked whether witnesses had been examined after the indictment No. 458 was quashed in order to find indictment No. 462. He refused to answer. After this refusal, another question was propounded, to-wit:
"Q. Conceding for the sake of question that the grand jury heard evidence on which they based the indictment 458 did they hear any evidence of any kind in order to find indictment No. 462?" This also he declined to answer. He was sustained by the court and a bill of exceptions was taken to the court's ruling setting forth the facts. A copy of the District Attorney's testimony was annexed to the bill of exceptions.
With these facts before us we have given all attention possible to defendant's position. The statute having made it the duty of grand jurors to inform the grand jury of any violation of the criminal laws, which may have come to his knowledge, it follows that presentment may be made upon the knowledge of the grand jury founded upon the information of one of their number. This knowledge of one of the grand jurors may be sufficient for the exercise of their function and the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP