State v. Suire
| Decision Date | 30 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | 22635 |
| Citation | 142 La. 101,76 So. 254 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. SUIRE |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
The exemption of any particular witness from the rule or order of the court, excluding the witnesses from the courtroom during the trial of a criminal case, is a matter so largely within the discretion of the trial judge that, if he makes an exception that is at all reasonable, e. g., if the excepted witness is the prosecuting witness or party who was injured or aggrieved, the ruling should be affirmed.
Although the character of the defendant in a criminal prosecution is not subject to attack by the state unless the defendant puts his character at issue, nevertheless, if he becomes a witness in his own behalf, he thereby subjects his testimony to impeachment and puts at issue the question of his credibility, like that of any other witness.
The defendant in a criminal prosecution cannot require the judge to give, in his charge to the jury, an instruction upon a legal proposition that has no application to the facts of the case.
It is not essential to the legality of a criminal trial that the defendant be present in court at all times that the jury is in court, as, for example, when the jury, having retired for deliberation, is called back into court merely to be informed by the judge that court is about to adjourn for the day, and that the sheriff will see to the jurors' wants.
Raphael J. Labauve, of Abbeville, for appellant.
A. V Coco, Atty. Gen., and Preston J. Green, Dist. Atty., of Abbeville (Vernon A. Coco, of Marksville, and Minos T. Gordy, of Abbeville, of counsel), for the State.
O'NIELL, J.
The defendant was convicted of embezzlement, was condemned to serve a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary, and prosecutes this appeal.
The first bill of exceptions was reserved to a ruling of the trial judge, permitting two prosecuting witnesses (the owners of the property embezzled) to remain in court during the trial, after the judge had ordered all of the witnesses excluded from the courtroom.
Exempting any particular witness from the rule or order of court, excluding the witnesses from the courtroom during the trial of a criminal case, is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge. When he makes an exception that is reasonable, e. g., if the excepted witness is the prosecuting witness or person aggrieved or injured, the ruling should be affirmed. See Marr's Cr. Jurisprudence, § 423.
The second bill of exceptions recites that the defendant, having testified in his own behalf, and being cross-examined by the district attorney, was asked whether he was willing to admit that he had, in a previous prosecution for petty larceny, pleaded guilty. His attorney urged the objection that the character of the defendant was not at issue, and that the purpose and effect of propounding the question was to prejudice the jury against the accused. The trial judge then asked the district attorney what was the purpose of his question, to which the latter replied that his intention was not to attack the character of the accused, but to question his credibility as a witness. The court permitted the question to be asked, for the purpose only of inquiring into the credibility of the witness; and the defendant's attorney excepted to the ruling. The witness answered that he had pleaded guilty to an indictment charging petty larceny.
The ruling was correct. It is too well settled to require citation of authority that, although the character of the defendant in a criminal prosecution is not subject to attack by the state unless the defendant puts his character at issue, nevertheless, if he becomes a witness in his own behalf, he thereby subjects his testimony to impeachment and puts his credibility at issue, like that of any other witness.
The third bill of exceptions was taken to the refusal of the judge to give a special charge to the jury, requested by the defendant's attorney....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dreher
...witness who testifies in the case." State v. Bigner, 163 La. 473, 112 So. 303; State v. Morgan, 142 La. 755, 77 So. 588; State v. Suire, 142 La. 101, 76 So. 254; v. Anderson, 135 La. 326, 65 So. 478. In McGruder et al. v. State, 71 Ga. 864, among other things the court said: "Where two defe......
-
State v. Thornhill
... ... cross-examined upon the whole case." Code Cr.Proc. art ... If a ... defendant becomes a witness in his own behalf, hethereby ... subjects [188 La. 790] his testimony to impeachment and puts ... his credibility at issue like any other witness. State v ... Suire, 142 La. 101, 76 So. 254; State v. Quinn, ... 131 La. 490, 59 So. 913 ... We find ... no error in the ruling of the court ... Besides, ... the law is that evidence of good character is unavailing ... against proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State ... v ... ...
-
State v. Ferguson
...the discretion of the trial judge, and if he makes an exception that is at all reasonable, his ruling should be affirmed. State v. Suire, 142 La. 101, 76 So. 254. Nevertheless, the judge's per curiam or the record should show that the exception was a reasonable In the final analysis, howeve......
-
United States v. Waller
...It is reversible error to admit evidence as to bad character, when defendant's reputation has not been put at issue. State v. Suire, 142 La. 101, 76 So. 254; State v. McBeth, 167 La. 324, 119 So. 65; State v. Savoy, 170 La. 803, 129 So. 209; State v. Rives, 193 La. 186, 190 So. 13 State v. ......