State v. Casey

• Decision Date: 01 October 1892
• Docket Number: 324
• Citation: 11 So. 583,44 La.Ann. 969
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. BUCK CASEY

11 So. 583

44 La.Ann. 969

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. BUCK CASEY

No. 324

Supreme Court of Louisiana

October 1, 1892

APPEAL from the Ninth District Court, Parish of Red River. Hall J.

J. B Lee and J. R. Land, District Attorneys, for the State Appellee.

J. C Egan & Son, for Defendant and Appellant.

OPINION

McENERY, J.

Buck Casey, the defendant, a negro, was tried, convicted, and sentenced for committing the crime of manslaughter. He appealed.

There are six bills of exceptions upon which the defendant relies for a reversal of the judgment.

No. 1 -- A witness for the State testified that he heard a conversation between deceased and defendant, in which the deceased said: "Stop, let's shoot it out." The district attorney asked the witness the following question: "How long was it from the time deceased said 'Stop, let's shoot it out?'" which was objected to by defendant as calling for an expression of opinion from the witness. The objection was very properly overruled, as the question did not call for an opinion, but a fact, a definite period of time.

Bill No. 2 -- The defendant complains of the ruling of the trial judge in forcing him to trial without legal service of indictment and venire. The court convened September 5, 1892, with a jury of fifty for the first week, and of thirty for the second week, beginning on Monday, September 12. A grand jury was impaneled on the 5th of September out of the panel of fifty.

September 8 the defendant was arraigned and his case fixed for trial on the 14th of September, the second week of the term. The jury list and indictment served on the prisoner two entire days before the trial showed the jurors drawn for both the first and second weeks.

There were two separate lists, each headed with the names of the jurors drawn for the first and second weeks respectively. The accused has no cause to complain because the list of jurors on a separate list for the first week was served on him.

His trial was fixed for the 14th of September, the second week of the term, and the list of jurors for this week, who were to pass on his case, was served on him two clear days before the trial. 31 An. 897.

Bills 3, 4 and 6 may be considered together.

The jurors answered on their voir dire that they thought a white jury more competent to give the prisoner justice than a negro jury, and that it was their opinion that the country would be better off without the negro; that the colonization of the negro was desirable.

In bill 4 it appears that the juror stated he had race prejudices, and that he thought the negro ought to be tried by a white jury.

These questions were all hypothetical and had no relation whatever to the case on trial. The jurors did not say that they had any prejudice against the accused, or that they could not give him a fair trial.

Race prejudice exists everywhere among all nations, who favor their own race and believe it is the favored and cherished race of the world. No man, because he thinks his own race superior to another, is disqualified as a juror on this account, particularly as in this case the difficulty was between two of the same race. As between them, the juror, notwithstanding his opinion of superiority of his race and people, can give an impartial verdict.

Bill No. 5 -- A juror was challenged because he was unable to read or write and was not...