State v. Smith

• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MONROE, J.
• Citation: State v. Smith, 106 La. 33, 30 So. 248 (La. 1901)
• Decision Date: 01 January 1901
• Docket Number: 13,971
• Parties: STATE OF LOUISIANA v. EVA SMITH

30 So. 248

106 La. 33

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. EVA SMITH

No. 13,971

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 1, 1901

APPEAL from the Eighteenth Judicial District, Parish of Lafayette -- DeBaillon, J..

Walter Guion, Attorney General, and William Campbell, District Attorney, (Lewis Guion, of Counsel), for Plaintiff, Appellee.

Gus. A Breaux, for Defendant, Appellant.

OPINION

MONROE, J.

Defendant was convicted of perjury and sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor. The transcript contains a single bill of exception, which reads as follows, to-wit: "Be it remembered that on the trial of this case the accused through her counsel, offered to prove, by the following witnesses, viz: Justilien Guillote, Theodule Guillote, and Charles Smith, all competent witnesses, that the accused was at the date of committing the act of which she is accused, and for which she is being prosecuted, and has been, through life, an imbecile, with such very limited intelligence that she could not judge between the right and wrong of the crime of perjury, to all of which evidence the district attorney, on behalf of the State, objected that * * * * *

Which objection was maintained by the court, and the evidence excluded. To this ruling the accused excepted and presented this bill of exceptions, which was duly signed by the judge. Done and signed in open court, this 13th day of April, 1901.

(Signed) C. DeBaillon, Judge, 18th Jud. Dist., La."

After the filing of the transcript in this court, the Attorney General, being under the impression that something had been omitted from the bill, in the transcription, applied for, and obtained, a writ of certiorari, directing the clerk to complete the transcript. But the clerk returned that the transcript was complete, and that the bill, as copied therein, is a correct copy of the original. Thereupon, the Attorney General obtained a similar writ, in the alternate form, directing the judge a quo to state, in writing, his reason for refusing to permit the witnesses named in the bill to testify, or show cause to the contrary; to which the judge makes the following return, to-wit:

"The undersigned respondent, for answer and return to the writ of certiorari in the above entitled proceedings, says that the same should not be peremptory and the relief sought should not be granted, because the record, as made up and filed in your Honorable Court, is complete, and correct; and that nothing can be added to it, whether the record be sufficient or insufficient to maintain the verdict and sentence. Further answering, respondent returns that the bill of exceptions was handed to him after sentence and when respondent was about to adjourn court for that session, late Saturday evening; finding that the objections, which had been made to the excluded testimony, had not been incorporated in the bill, respondent signed the bill without assigning any reasons, not deeming it necessary to assign any under the circumstances. Further answering, respondent returns that the object of the excluded testimony was to obtain the opinion of the witnesses as to the sanity of the accused; that she was, and had been through life, an imbecile with such limited intelligence that she could not judge between the right and wrong of the crime of perjury; and this, by non-expert testimony, by farmers, of very limited education and experience. The witnesses were not offered to prove the acts, deportment, conversations, declarations, etc., of the accused, from which the jury could have judged her mental condition. There was no pretense that the mania, or imbecility, existed when she committed the perjury; it was not shown that said witnesses were present in court when the accused testified in the case wherein the perjury was assigned. The accused was a material witness for the State in the prosecution of "State of Louisiana vs. Thomas Dickson," charged with rape, and her testimony had sufficient effect upon the jury to obtain a qualified verdict; her testimony was full and complete upon that trial, and she did not impress any one in court that she was insane, or that she was an imbecile. On the contrary, she clearly satisfied every one that she was intelligent, cool, and deliberate, and above the average of her race. On her trial, she testified fully and intelligently. Her acts, conduct, demeanor, etc., on the witness stand, failed to show any such indicia of mental condition, as usually and naturally accompany and furnish...