State v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 01 February 1887 |
| Docket Number | 9813 |
| Citation | 1 So. 421,39 La.Ann. 239 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. LOUIS BROOKS |
APPEAL from the Twenty-Fourth District Court, parish of Plaquemines. Livaudais, J.
M. J Cunningham, Attorney General, and James Wilkinson, District Attorney, for the State, Appellee.
R. T Beauregard and Zacharie & Howard, for Defendant and Appellant.
The accused appeals from a verdict of manslaughter and a sentence of eighteen years at hard labor.
The record contains three bills of exception: one, to the refusal of the district judge to grant a continuance; another, to a ruling on a question of admission of testimony, and the last one, to the refusal of the judge to give certain charges to the jury.
It appears from the first bill that the homicide, with which accused is charged, was committed on the 29th of September 1886; that he surrendered himself the same day, and was committed without bail; that he was arraigned on the 4th of October following, and the case was fixed for the 9th ensuing; that when the case was called he moved for a continuance on the following grounds, viz:
That the accused was entitled to reasonable time within which to make the necessary arrangements to retain and secure counsel, and that he has not been allowed the same.
That said counsel, when retained, were entitled to a reasonable time within which to prepare his defense, and that, under the circumstances, they have not been so allowed.
That the evidence elicited and annexed, shows that the public mind is excited against him, so that he cannot have the fair trial which he may, when the excitement subsides.
The motion which was made for a continuance went into details to show the verity of the grounds, and is supported by the oath of the accused, which is fortified by that of the counsel.
It appears from the showing made, that it is not until the 8th of October, the day preceding that fixed for the trial, that the accused could make definite arrangements with counsel for his defense and that the latter could not, in the short delay ensuing between the occurrence of the act and the day assigned for trial, prepare the defense in such a manner as the gravity of the case demanded, involving the life of a citizen; that the counsel could not procure the necessary books in time, although due diligence had been used, and could not safely proceed to trial in this unprepared condition, as the case, it was alleged, involves...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jackson
......222; State. v. Maddox, 117 Mo. 667; State v. Kauffman, 329. Mo. 813; State v. Dreschamps, 41 La. Ann. 1051, 7. So. 133; State v. Sullivan, 43 Kan. 563, 23 P. 645;. Price v. People, 131 Ill. 223, 23 N.E. 639;. State v. Ferris, 16 La. Ann. 435; State v. Simpson, 38 La. Ann. 24; State v. Brooks, 39. La. Ann. 421, 1 So. 421; Blackman v. State, 76 Ga. 288; State v. Jones, 12 Mo.App. 93; State v. Anderson, 96 Mo. 241; State v. Dawson, 90 Mo. 149; State v. Walker, 69 Mo. 474; Mo. Const., Art. II, Sec. 22; Revised Bar Rules, Rule 44. (2) The court should. have given the instruction ......
-
State v. Jackson.
......222; State v. Maddox, 117 Mo. 667; State v. Kauffman, 329 Mo. 813; State v. Dreschamps, 41 La. Ann. 1051, 7 So. 133; State v. Sullivan, 43 Kan. 563, 23 Pac. 645; Price v. People, 131 Ill. 223, 23 N.E. 639; State v. Ferris, 16 La. Ann. 435; State v. Simpson, 38 La. Ann. 24; State v. Brooks, 39 La. Ann. 421, 1 So. 421; Blackman v. State, 76 Ga. 288; State v. Jones, 12 Mo. App. 93; State v. Anderson, 96 Mo. 241; State v. Dawson, 90 Mo. 149; State v. Walker, 69 Mo. 474; Mo. Const., Art. II, Sec. 22; Revised Bar Rules, Rule 44. (2) The court should have given the instruction offered by ......
- Taylor v. State
-
Pearson v. State
...... Commonwealth v. O'Keefe, 298 Pa. 169, 148 A. 73;. Powell v. Alabama, 77 L.Ed. 158; Paoni v. U.S. 281 F. 801; Constitution of United States, Articles. VI and XIV; Constitution of State of Mississippi, sec. 26;. Section 1262, Code of 1930; State v. Poole, 23 So. 503; State v. Brooks, 1 So. 421; Shaffer v. Terr., 127 P. 746; Schields v. McMicking, 23. Philippine 526; Warren v. State, 164 So. 234. . . The. grand jury which found the indictment against appellant was. improperly and irregularly drawn and unknown to Mississippi. jurisprudence, and therefore the ......