State v. Halliday

• Decision Date: 16 November 1903
• Docket Number: 14,939
• Citation: 111 La. 47,35 So. 380
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. HALLIDAY

35 So. 380

111 La. 47

STATE v. HALLIDAY

No. 14,939

Supreme Court of Louisiana

November 16, 1903

Appeal from Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberia; T Don Foster, Judge.

William Halliday was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Reversed.

Burke &amp Burke, for appellant.

Walter Guion, Atty. Gen., and Edward S. Broussard, Dist. Atty (Lewis Guion, of counsel), for the State.

OPINION

MONROE, J.

The defendant in this case, who was indicted for murder, having been convicted of manslaughter and duly sentenced, presents his case to this court by means of certain bills of exception, to wit:

1. Elinor Broussard, a state witness, having asserted that he could not testify in English, was examined by the judge, who being satisfied to the contrary, ordered him to do so. Thereafter, on redirect examination, he was asked whether he had made a statement attributed to him by the counsel for the defendant, to which he replied that if he had it was because he could not explain himself in English, whereupon the district attorney remarked, in the presence and hearing of the jury, "Yes, it was an injustice to you not to let you testify in French." And thereupon the counsel for the defendant interposed the objection "that the conduct of the district attorney was prejudicial to the interests of the defendant, in inducing the jury to believe that injury or wrong was being done to the state." And the bill proceeds to recite that no statement was made to the jury by the court to counteract such prejudice. There seems, however, to have been no request for any ruling. We take it that the remark of the state's attorney was probably intended by way of sympathy with the witness rather than criticism of the court, but whether intended in the one way or the other, or in both ways, it was not likely to have worked any prejudice to the accused, and affords no ground for setting aside the verdict.

2. Edward McIlhenny, a witness for the defendant, was asked on direct examination: "What instructions did you, as employer of the accused, in charge of your Prairie Farm, give him as to the policing of the place?" To this the state's attorney objected "that the question is illegal, irrelevant, and entirely disconnected with the case at issue; and, further, that it is not shown that on that particular day accused was in discharge of his duties as employe of McIlhenny, but, on the contrary, it had been shown to the court and jury that the accused and a large crowd of people of his color were at a picnic, where the deceased was also, for having a good time, this having happened on a Sunday; and, further, that no one can give authority to an employe to take a human life."

In the bill of exception it appears that the counsel for defendant stated to the court:

"That the purpose of the question was to show that the accused was the keeper and custodian of the farm belonging to Mr. McIlhenny, and that he was in charge there, under special instructions to prevent any disturbances occurring thereon, and that it was on this farm that the difficulty occurred."

In the memorandum of the proceedings which is attached to and made part of the bill, the statement appears as follows:

"Counsel for the defendant stating to the court that the purpose of the question was to show that Halliday, the accused, was that day...