State v. Valere
| Citation | 39 La.Ann. 1060,3 So. 186 |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1887 |
| Docket Number | 10,050 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
| Parties | THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. GUILLAUME VALERE, ALIAS PETER VALERE |
Application refused.
APPEAL from the Twenty-first District Court, Parish of St. Martin. Mouton, J.
M. J Cunningham, Attorney General, for the State, Appellee.
E Simon, F. Voorhies and Dan Voorhies, for Defendant and Appellant.
The record teems with charges of error embodied in bills of exception, a motion for new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment, most of which require only the briefest mention.
1st. The indictment is assailed as insufficient in law because the endorsement thereon did not specify the offense charged and because the foreman of the grand jury signed simply as "Foreman," without adding the words "of the grand jury." The objections are frivolous. State vs. Mason, 32 Ann. 1019; State vs. Granville, 34 Ann. 1089.
2d. It is objected that the venire and indictment were not served two full days before the trial. The return of the sheriff showed the contrary, and it was not successfully contradicted.
3d. The copy of the indictment served is assailed as not a true copy, because certain words endorsed on the original were not contained on the copy. The omission charged was utterly immaterial. 32 Ann. 1019.
4th. Objections were raised to the method of summoning jurors de talibus, which have no force, and were sufficiently disposed of by the reasons given by the judge.
5th. Certain defects in the minutes of the court were assigned as ground of the motion in arrest, whereupon the judge ordered the minutes to be corrected so as to conform to the facts. This he had the right to do, whenever his attention was called to the errors.
6th. The claim that the accused was not present at all important proceedings on the trial, is not sustained. State vs. Price, 37 Ann. 215.
7th. Defendant offered in evidence a deposition of one of the State's witnesses, taken before a justice of the peace for the purpose of contradicting the evidence given by the same witness on this trial. The judge refused the same, without proof of the signature of the witness, which was by cross-mark, holding that the attestation thereof by the justice of the peace did not afford authenticity, because said justice had no jurisdiction, ratione materiae, to swear witnesses and take down depositions in a murder case, and his action was coram nonjudice , and...
To continue reading
Request your trial