State v. Higdon

• Decision Date: 26 February 1923
• Docket Number: 25661
• Citation: State v. Higdon, 153 La. 374, 95 So. 868 (La. 1923)
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. HIGDON

95 So. 868

153 La. 374

STATE v. HIGDON

No. 25661

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 26, 1923

Rehearing Denied April 2, 1923

Appeal from Twelfth Judicial District Court, Parish of Vernon; John H. Boone, Judge.

L. C Higdon was convicted of an offense, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

C. E Hardin, of Leesville (P. L. Ferguson, of Leesville, of counsel), for appellant.

A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and J. B. Hill, Dist. Atty., of Many (T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

OPINION

ROGERS, J.

Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of carnal knowledge, and was sentenced to serve not less than five years in the state penitentiary, subject to commutation of sentence as provided by law. He prosecutes this appeal relying upon three bills of exception, the first of which relates to the action of the trial court in sustaining an objection, on the ground of irrelevancy, to the admission of certain testimony sought to be elicited from a witness on cross-examination, the second, to the ruling of the court in refusing to sustain an objection to a question propounded to one of defendant's witnesses to prove the age of the accused, and the third, to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, to which was attached the first and second bills reserved.

The prosecutrix was a motherless girl, 16 years of age, employed by the defendant in his mercantile establishment at the time the offense was committed.

Dr. F. P. Jones, a witness for the state, having testified that the accused had brought the prosecutrix to him after night, and that he had examined her, and in the course of examination had interrogated her about her condition, on cross-examination was asked by defendant's counsel what the trouble was, which question the witness refused to answer, claiming the information he held was privileged. Counsel for defendant then propounded to the witness the following question:

"Was the trouble with which the prosecutrix was suffering common to all women, or was it an unusual condition?"

It appears that the question was asked for the purpose of eliciting the statement from the witness that the little girl showed some symtoms of a venereal disease. The question was objected to as irrelevant and immaterial, which objection was sustained. The ruling was correct. Defendant was charged with the crime of carnal knowledge. The testimony excluded was sought to be introduced for the...