State v. Conda

• Decision Date: 20 June 1924
• Docket Number: 26670
• Citation: 156 La. 679,101 So. 19
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. CONDA

101 So. 19

156 La. 679

STATE v. CONDA

No. 26670

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 20, 1924

Appeal from Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of Morehouse; Fred M. Odom, Judge.

William Conda, alias William Bell, was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals.

Verdict and sentenceannulled, and case remanded for new trial.

Todd &amp Todd, of Bastrop, for appellant.

Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., and David I. Garrett, Dist. Atty., of Monroe (Percy T. Ogden of Crowley, and M. M. Irwin, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

OPINION

ROGERS, J.

Defendant was indicted for the murder of one Jim Thornton. He was tried, found guilty of manslaughter, and duly sentenced. He prosecutes this appeal, relying upon four bills of exception.

As, in our opinion, the case is disposed of by one of these bills, it is unnecessary for us to consider the others.

The record shows that during a difficulty which arose between defendant and one Rube Newton, and while they were firing at each other with pistols, Thornton, a bystander, was killed.

The trial judge, at the request of the state's attorney, charged the jury that where the defendant set up a plea of self-defense it was an admission of the killing. Counsel for defendant excepted to this charge, reserving his bill which appears as No. 2 in the record.

The charge was error. It is not true as an abstract principle of law that a plea of self-defense, in a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, is an admission that the defendant did the killing. Self-defense is not a special plea. It is involved in the general issue tendered by the plea of not guilty. The burden is not upon the accused to prove that he acted in self-defense. It is upon the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was done feloniously, and therefore not in self-defense. State v. Linden, 154 La. 65, 97 So. 299; State v. Sandiford, 149 La. 933, 90 So. 261; State v. Herring, 131 La. 972, 60 So. 634; State v. Varnado, 128 La. 883, 55 So. 562; State v. Ardoin, 128 La. 14, 54 So. 407, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 45.

The trial judge, in an addendum to the bill, states that there never was any denial by defendant that a bullet from his pistol killed the deceased; that the shooting took place in a crowded room; that defendant shot at Rube Newton, and killed the deceased, who was standing just beyond Newton from defendant; that all of the testimony showed that defendant urged the plea of self-defense, claiming that Newton shot at him first; that the case hinged upon the question whether the defendant would have been excusable had he killed Newton; and that he did not think defendant was prejudiced by the charge.

Defendant on the other hand, as shown by the record, at no time admitted the killing. There is an obvious distinction between the express admission of a fact and the failure to deny that fact. Non constat that the witness may have been interrogated concerning the fact he is alleged not to have denied. In the case at bar, however, defendant was...