Robert West v. State of Louisiana, No. 230

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPeckham
Citation24 S.Ct. 650,48 L.Ed. 965,194 U.S. 258
Docket NumberNo. 230
Decision Date02 May 1904
PartiesROBERT L. WEST and Others, Plffs. in Err ., v. STATE OF LOUISIANA

194 U.S. 258
24 S.Ct. 650
48 L.Ed. 965
ROBERT L. WEST and Others, Plffs. in Err.,

v.

STATE OF LOUISIANA.

No. 230.
Argued and submitted April 15, 1904.
Decided May 2, 1904.

The plaintiffs in error were proceeded against by information, and were convicted of larceny in the criminal district court of the parish of Orleans, Louisiana, on April 4, 1902, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment, which conviction and sentence were thereafter affirmed by the supreme court of Louisiana. 109 La. 622, 33 So. 618. They have brought the case here by writ of error.

On the trial the district attorney offered to real the testimony of one Thebaud, after having proved that he was permanently absent from the state and was a nonresident thereof, and that his attendance could not be procured. it appeared that the plaintiffs in error had been arrested and charged with the crime for which they were then on trial, and had been brought before the judge of the city criminal court, sitting as

Page 259

a committing magistrate, and upon the hearing before him, in the presence of the plaintiffs in error and their counsel, the witness Thebaud had been produced and examined orally, and cross-examined by the counsel for plaintiffs in error. The offer of the district attorney, after he had made this proof, to read the testimony thus taken upon the preliminary examination, was objected to by counsel for plaintiffs in error on various grounds, the material one now urged being that it was not shown that the witness whose deposition was proposed to be read was dead, insane, or sick, nor that he was absent by the procurement of the plaintiffs in error or their counsel, and it was insisted that the reading of that testimony would be in violation of the act of 1805, being now § 976 of the Revised Statutes of Louisiana, and of article 9 of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of that state, and also would violate the 6th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

The act of 1805 reads as follows:

'All crimes, offenses, and misdemeanors shall be taken, intended, and construed according to, and in conformity with, the common law of England; and the forms of indictment (devested, however, of unnecessary prolixity), the method of trial, the rules of evidence, and all other proceedings whatsoever in the prosecution of crimes, offenses, and misdemeanors, changing what ought to be changed, shall be according to the common law, unless otherwise provided.' Acts 1805, p. 440, § 33.

Article 9 of the Constitution of 1898 of the state of Louisiana provides as follows:

'In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury: Provided, that cases in which the penalty is not necessarily imprisonment at hard labor or death shall be tried by the court without a jury, or by a jury less than twelve in number, as provided elsewhere in the Constitution: Provided further, that all trials shall take place in the parish in which the offense was committed, unless the venue be changed. The accused in every instance shall

Page 260

have the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him; he shall have the right to defend himself, to have the assistance of counsel, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.'

The evidence contained in the deposition was material. The objections to the reading thereof were overruled, and the counsel for plaintiffs in error duly excepted. The deposition was then read in evidence.

Messrs. Lionel Adams, Henry L. Lazarus, and Richard B. Otero for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Walter Guion and F. C. Zacharie for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the above statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court:

The only question for this court to determine is whether the admission of the deposition of Thebaud as evidence upon the trial of this case deprived the plaintiffs in error of due process of law, and therefore was a violation of the 14th Amendment upon the part of the state through its judicial department.

For many years the supreme court of Louisiana has held that upon such facts as were proved in this case it was proper to admit a deposition as evidence upon the trial of the accused; that in such circumstances he had been confronted with the witnesses within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the state. Many cases were cited by the supreme court in the opinion in this case as authority for the proposition it laid down and, after having cited them, the court, in its opinion, continued:

'A reference to these various decisions will show that this court has repeatedly permitted the introduction in evidence of testimony of witnesses which had been taken down in writing on a preliminary examination, when the presence of the wit-

Page 261

nesses themselves at the trial could not be obtained. In the case before us the witnesses whose written testimony was so received were permanently absent from the state, the accused were present at the examination and cross-examined the witnesses. The jurisprudence of the state on the subject fully warranted the action of the district court in permitting the testimony to be introduced.'

Counsel for the plaintiffs in error in their brief used in this court concede that the law of Louisiana, as stated in the above extract from the opinion of the court in this case, 'is absolutely indisputable;' but they nevertheless urge that the decisions are founded in error and are in violation of the Constitution and mandatory statute (act of 1805; Rev. Stat. § 976, supra), requiring that, in the prosecution of crimes, among other things, the rules of evidence shall be in accordance with the English common law as it stood in 1805.

We are now asked to review the decisions of the state court as to what is the law of that state regarding this question of evidence, because, as asserted, the state has, ever since 1805, made the common law, as it existed at that time, the rule as to evidence on criminal trials, and it is contended that the common law did not permit this evidence under circumstances existing in this case, and the state court, in permitting the deposition to be read, not only violated the state law, but the 14th Amendment, by refusing to the plaintiffs in error due process of law.

Whether the state court erred in its construction of the state Constitution and statutes and the common law on the subject of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
97 practice notes
  • United States v. Singleton, No. 499
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 12, 1972
    ...essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal."), with West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258, 24 S.Ct. 650, 48 L.Ed. 965 (1904) (deposition permissible in state case). Proper procedural protection is the keystone of the structure of A......
  • State v. Blanchard, No. 2631
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • November 16, 1967
    ...all its subleties, anomalies and ramifications, will not be read into the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. West v. State of Louisiana, supra, 194 U.S. 258, 24 S.Ct. 650, 48 L.Ed. Perhaps the methods adopted by the New York courts to protect Wissner against any disadvantage from the State's use of ......
  • People v. Aranda, Cr. 9078
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 12, 1965
    ...of confrontation applies to trials in state courts, the court noted that any statements to the contrary in West v. State of Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258, 264, 24 S.Ct. 650, 48 L.Ed. 965, and in Stein v. People of State of New York, 346 U.S. 156, 195-196, 73 S.Ct. 1077, 97 L.Ed. 1522, could no lo......
  • U.S. v. King, Nos. 75-2424
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 16, 1976
    ...available to testify. Id. at 182-83, 90 S.Ct. 1930. Compare id. at 162, 90 S.Ct. 1930 (opinion of the court). He cited West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258, 24 S.Ct. 650, 48 L.Ed. 965 (1904), as one of the opinions which both justified his rationale and "anchored it in precedent." In West, the C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
97 cases
  • United States v. Singleton, No. 499
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 12, 1972
    ...essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal."), with West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258, 24 S.Ct. 650, 48 L.Ed. 965 (1904) (deposition permissible in state case). Proper procedural protection is the keystone of the structure of A......
  • State v. Blanchard, No. 2631
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • November 16, 1967
    ...all its subleties, anomalies and ramifications, will not be read into the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. West v. State of Louisiana, supra, 194 U.S. 258, 24 S.Ct. 650, 48 L.Ed. Perhaps the methods adopted by the New York courts to protect Wissner against any disadvantage from the State's use of ......
  • People v. Aranda, Cr. 9078
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 12, 1965
    ...of confrontation applies to trials in state courts, the court noted that any statements to the contrary in West v. State of Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258, 264, 24 S.Ct. 650, 48 L.Ed. 965, and in Stein v. People of State of New York, 346 U.S. 156, 195-196, 73 S.Ct. 1077, 97 L.Ed. 1522, could no lo......
  • U.S. v. King, Nos. 75-2424
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 16, 1976
    ...available to testify. Id. at 182-83, 90 S.Ct. 1930. Compare id. at 162, 90 S.Ct. 1930 (opinion of the court). He cited West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258, 24 S.Ct. 650, 48 L.Ed. 965 (1904), as one of the opinions which both justified his rationale and "anchored it in precedent." In West, the C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT