State v. Richard

• Citation: 50 La.Ann. 210,23 So. 331
• Decision Date: 07 March 1898
• Docket Number: 12,735
• Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana
• Parties: STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ULYSSES RICHARD

23 So. 331

50 La.Ann. 210

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ULYSSES RICHARD

No. 12,735

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 7, 1898

Submitted February 26, 1898.

APPEAL from the Eleventh Judicial District Court for the Parish of Acadia. Dupre, J.

M. J Cunningham, Attorney General, and R. Lee Garland, District Attorney (P. A. Simmons, Jr., of Counsel), for Plaintiff Appellee.

E. P Veazie, for Defendant, Appellant.

OPINION

BREAUX, J.

The question before us for determination is whether the preferment by a grand jury of an indictment (if found without any evidence as to the guilt of the accused) may be proved by the prosecuting officer.

The facts are that one indictment numbered 458 had been quashed in this case. The grand jury returned a second indictment No. 462 on January 6, 1898. The next day prior to plea pleaded the defendant interposed the objection that the grand jury entered this indictment without having heard any evidence whatever.

On the trial of the motion to quash the District Attorney was examined as a witness, and was asked if he was present when the indictment was found, to which he replied that he withdrew from the deliberation when the jury's vote was taken.

He was then asked whether witnesses had been examined after the indictment No. 458 was quashed in order to find indictment No. 462. He refused to answer. After this refusal, another question was propounded, to-wit:

"Q. Conceding for the sake of question that the grand jury heard evidence on which they based the indictment 458 did they hear any evidence of any kind in order to find indictment No. 462?" This also he declined to answer. He was sustained by the court and a bill of exceptions was taken to the court's ruling setting forth the facts. A copy of the District Attorney's testimony was annexed to the bill of exceptions.

With these facts before us we have given all attention possible to defendant's position. The statute having made it the duty of grand jurors to inform the grand jury of any violation of the criminal laws, which may have come to his knowledge, it follows that presentment may be made upon the knowledge of the grand jury founded upon the information of one of their number. This knowledge of one of the grand jurors may be sufficient for the exercise of their function and the return of a true bill in a case.

In a charge of Associate Justice Field of the Supreme Court of the United States to a grand jury in the United States Circuit Court for the District of California, he explained to the jurors "that their investigations must be limited to such matters as may be called to their attention by the court or may be submitted to their consideration by the District Attorney, or should the District Attorney refuse to act, they may make their complaints to a committing magistrate, or must be limited to such facts as may come to their knowledge in the course of their investigations into the matters brought before them, or from their own observations, or may come to their knowledge from the disclosure of their associates." We take it that under the statutes of this State, and under the authority of an instruction to a jury, which must command respect in all places where reasons control, the grand juries have the right to originate charges against offenders. Such we take it, is the view, in other jurisdictions under statutory provisions. Merriam and Thompson, par. 615.

It has been decided in other jurisdictions that, in view of the fact that a grand juror is under oath to make only true presentment, there is no necessity that he should take an oath as a witness. When the grand jury is investigating a...