State v. Mack
| Decision Date | 01 October 1893 |
| Docket Number | 370 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JIM MACK |
APPEAL from the Thirteenth District Court, Parish of East Feliciana. Brame, J.
John R Land, District Attorney, for the State, Appellee.
W. F Kernan, for Defendant and Appellant.
The defendant, having been indicted for murder, was on trial convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to the penitentiary for the period of seven years. He has appealed, relying upon the following grounds set up in a motion for a new trial which was overruled:
1. That the court allowed assistant counsel for the State to close the argument.
2. That the court allowed the assisting counsel for the prosecution to state to the jury in the closing argument that he believed said accused to be guilty.
3. That the court erred in charging the jury that it was involuntary manslaughter "where in a scuffle to disarm a person a pistol or gun is accidentally discharged and kills a person."
On the first two grounds bills of exception were reserved, but the last objection was set up for the first time in the motion for a new trial, and no exception was taken to the adverse ruling upon this motion.
No objection is urged to the employment of an assisting counsel for the prosecution and no claim is made that the State was not entitled to the closing argument, but it is contended that this argument should have been made by the district attorney himself. Counsel for the accused in his brief says that
There is nothing in the record to show by whom this counsel was engaged or under what circumstances he took part in the proceedings. There is no evidence of the existence of the particular fact on the strength of which this case is sought to be taken from under the ruling in that of Anderson, and the decision in the latter determines adversely to the accused his first ground of complaint.
The second ground is thus stated by counsel in the bill of exceptions having relation to it: "On the trial of this case the assisting counsel for the prosecution stated in the closing argument that he believed the accused to be guilty, to which statement counsel for accused objected and excepted, and that the judge did not charge the jury to disregard said statement by said counsel."
Before signing the bill the district judge added: "The assistant counsel for prosecution immediately added that he believed the accused guilty from the evidence, and that the jury should go by the evidence and not by his opinion."
Counsel for the accused cite a number of decisions in support of his proposition that it is highly improper and unfair in a district attorney to declare to the jury that he believes the accused to be guilty, and that such a declaration warrants a new trial, among others that of People vs. Hess (Mich.), 48 N.W. Rep.; Raggio vs. People, 26 N. E. Rep.; Bery vs. The State, 10 Ga. 511, 522; Metchum vs. The State, 11 Ga. 615.
In State vs. Duck, 35 An. 764, this court said: "Accused charged error in the refusal of the district judge to stop the district attorney in the course of the latter's argument at the request of counsel for accused, charging that the district attorney was making an improper and unfair argument to the jury. There is no force in this complaint. This court can not and will not interfere with district judges in the manner of controlling their courts or of enforcing rules of propriety and decorum on the officers of the court.
That a district attorney should not throw the weight of his personal influence into the case which he is conducting as a public official by announcing his individual opinion and belief as to the guilt if an accused is undoubtedly true. In the case at bar the assistant counsel after making the statement that he believed the accused guilty, modified it immediately by saying "he believed him guilty under the evidence, and that the evidence should go by the evidence, and not by his opinion."
As so modified the private opinion of the counsel was still before the jury -- and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. State
... ... This ... statement of the district attorney was objected to because it ... gave his opinion, or his judgment as to the guilt or ... innocence of defendant, and this was improper and constituted ... reversible error ... State ... v. Mack, 14 So. 141; State v. Iverson, 68 So. 98; ... State v. Harper, 78 So. 845 ... It is ... improper to give to the jury conflicting instructions, even ... though one of them may announce the law correctly. Such ... instructions leave it to the jury to determine which of two ... ...
- Taylor v. State
-
State v. Hopper
... ... The jurisprudence has been legion that private counsel may be employed to assist the Attorney General or the district attorney in the trial of a criminal cause. State v. Petrich, 122 La. 127, 47 So. 438; State ex rel. Stewart v. Reid, 113 La. 890, 37 So. 866; State v. [251 La. 97] Mack, 45 La.Ann. 1155, 14 So. 141. Defendants have not shown prejudice ... Bill of Exceptions No. 1 is without merit ... Bill of Exceptions No. 2 was reserved when the trial judge sustained the objection of the district attorney to being questioned on ... ...
-
State v. Eyer
... ... 1008, 83 So. 223; State v. Daspit, 167 La. 53, 118 So. 690; State v. Jones, 176 La. 723, 146 So. 682; State v. Vinzant, 200 La. 301, 7 So.2d 917; State v. Willson, 215 La. 507, 41 So.2d 69; and State v. Blankenship, 231 La. 993, 93 So.2d 533 ... 2 State v. Briscoe, 30 La.Ann. 433; State v. Mack, 45 La.Ann. 1155, 14 So. 141; State v. Procella, 105 La. 518, 29 So. 967; and State v. Vinzant, 200 La. 301, 7 So.2d 917 ... 3 State ex rel. Gaines v. Judge, 12 La.Ann. 113; State v. Gunter, 30 La.Ann. 536; State v. Jefferson, 43 La.Ann. 995, 10 So. 199; State v. Johnson, 48 La.Ann. 87, 19 So ... ...