State v. Mahfouz
| Decision Date | 03 March 1941 |
| Docket Number | 36074. |
| Citation | 1 So.2d 82,197 La. 216 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. MAHFOUZ. |
S. R. Holstein, of Winnsboro, and Thompson L Clarke, of St. Joseph, for appellant.
Eugene Stanley, Atty. Gen., Niels F. Hertz, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen Jesse C. McGee, Dist. Atty., of Harrisonburg (Jos. M. Reeves of Vidalia, of counsel), for the State.
Louis Mahfouz, a white man, was jointly indicted with two negroes Frank Rhodes and Eddie Woods, for stealing a steer, the property of H. A. Turner. The negroes pleaded guilty to the offense and were sentenced to the penitentiary. Mahfouz was tried and convicted on the charge and was also sentenced to the penitentiary. He appealed and complains, among other things, that, over his objection, the State was permitted to introduce as rebuttal evidence what, in reality, was not rebuttal evidence, to the prejudice of his rights.
On the trial, the State called as witnesses to make out its case in chief the negroes, Frank Rhodes and Eddie Woods, who had been jointly indicted with the defendant Mahfouz. Both negroes testified that Frank Rhodes sold the stolen steer to Mahfouz, together with a yearling belonging to another person, for $13. Woods further testified that Rhodes gave him $6 of the $13 which he had received from Mahfouz.
The theory of the prosecution, as we understand it, is that the vileness of the price paid for the steer and the yearling was a fact from which a natural and reasonable inference arose that Mahfouz was one of the perpetrators of the offense.
Defendant did not deny that he bought the steer and the yearling from Rhodes, but offered testimony showing that he paid Rhodes $30 for them, which he contended was a fair price.
After the State had closed its case in chief and after defendant had closed and rested his case, the State called the prosecuting witness, H. A. Turner, in rebuttal, after he had been released from the rule under which the witnesses had been placed at the beginning of the trial. Mr. Turner was asked whether he saw the defendant in the courthouse in Vidalia the morning after he was arrested and whether, in answer to a question propounded by him, defendant stated that he did not know the negro from whom he bought the Turner steer, but that he 'was a tall slim negro about 35 years old, and that he had given the negro, Frank Rhodes, the sum of $2.00 for making the deal for him.'
It is not important for the purpose of considering appellant's complaint that, after testifying in chief and after he was released from the order sequestering all the witnesses in the case, Turner was recalled as a witness by the State. We shall pretermit, therefore, any discussion of that question and proceed to the consideration of the remaining question, which is whether the testimony sought to be elicited from Turner in rebuttal was admissible within the discretion of the trial judge with reservation of the right of defendant to rebut the testimony. State v. Foster, 150 La. 971, 91 So. 411; State v. Pierce, 169 La. 1025, 126 So. 514.
We understand from the bill of exception that the testimony offered in chief shows that for $13 appellant purchased from Frank Rhodes the steer belonging to Turner and a yearling belonging to another person, and that, with the exception of the amount of the purchase price, the testimony was corroborated by that offered on behalf of the defendant. Defendant's testimony shows that the purchase price of the steer and the yearling was $30, which defendant claims was their reasonable value. It will thus appear that the only conlict between the testimony of the witnesses for the State and the witnesses on behalf of the defendant was as to the amount of the purchase price received by Rhodes from the defendant. Defendant rested his case on that issue without taking the stand to testify in his own behalf. Neither the State nor the defendant offered any evidence to show that defendant purchased the steer and the yearling from any person other than Frank Rhodes. It is admitted by the State that the purpose of placing Turner on the stand in rebuttal was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
96 0606 La.App. 1 Cir. 6/30/97, State v. Amato
...did not testify, and thus Guillot's testimony could not have been independently admissible as impeachment. See State v. Mahfouz, 197 La. 216, 220, 1 So.2d 82, 83-84 (1941). Guillot's testimony did not create the first type of prejudice; it could not have been cured by surrebuttal. It was no......
-
Parten v. Webb
... ... expressly granted by law.' ... (4) ... Defendant, Webb, also argues here for the first time that the ... petition does not state a cause of action because it does not ... in express terms say that there is no production from the W ... 1/2 of S. E. 1/4 of N. E. 1/4 of Section ... ...
-
State v. Augusta
... ... for that reason it seems only fair that a defendant, as a ... witness, should have the same protection in that respect that ... is given to other witnesses. That view is supported by an ... expression in the opinion rendered in State v. Mahfouz, 197 ... La. 216, 1 So.2d 82, 83,--thus: ... It is clear ... also that so far as the testimony was sought to impeach ... defendant [199 La. 917] himself, it was irrelevant, since ... defendant was not a witness in the case, and, consequently, ... no foundation had been laid, or could ... ...