State v. Varnado
Decision Date | 11 July 1923 |
Docket Number | 26016 |
Citation | 154 La. 575,97 So. 865 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. VARNADO |
Rehearing Denied October 2, 1923
Appeal from Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; Robert S. Ellis, Judge.
W. W Varnado was indicted for perjury. From a judgment quashing the indictment, the State appeals. Judgment annulled and set aside, and indictment reinstated.
A. V Coco, Atty. Gen., and Matthew J. Allen, Dist. Atty., of Amite (T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
Wm. H McClendon, of Amite, for appellee.
OPINION
The indictment for perjury in this case was quashed, and the state has appealed. The motion to quash was made on the ground that the indictment charges no offense known to the laws of the state of Louisiana.
The indictment returned against the defendant is in words as follows:
Counsel for defendant contends that the indictment charges no offense, because it fails to show on its face that the oath was taken in a judicial proceeding, and that false swearing in a voluntary affidavit before a notary public before whom no cause is pending, and under no statutory procedure, is not perjury.
Section 857 of the Revised Statutes of 1870 provides that:
"Whoever shall willfully and corruptly commit perjury, or shall by any means procure any person to commit corrupt and willful perjury on his oath or affirmation in any suit, controversy, matter or cause depending in any of the courts of this state, or in any deposition or affidavit taken or made pursuant to its laws, upon conviction shall be imprisoned at hard labor," etc. (Italics ours.)
The indictment in this case clearly negatives the idea that the affidavit upon which the perjury is assigned is a mere voluntary affidavit by averring that said affidavit was made "in order to assist said defendants in obtaining a new trial in said cause and to furnish a basis for a motion for a new trial by said defendants presented in said cause on June 9, 1922."
In other words, the indictment charges that the affidavit of defendant was made with reference to a new trial in the Rini Case, and for the distinct purpose of enabling defendants, who had been found guilty as charged, to obtain a new trial.
It is not pretended in the indictment that the affidavit was made before the clerk of the court in the case of the State v. Joseph Rini et al., No. 4925 on the docket of the Twenty-Fifth judicial district court.
We are dealing here, not with perjury committed in a judicial proceeding, by taking a false and corrupt oath in that proceeding, but with perjury committed in an affidavit made before a notary public "pursuant to its laws" -- the laws of the state. Able counsel for defendant contends that the phrase "pursuant to its laws," as used in section 857 of the Revised Statutes, refers only to the statutes of the state, and, unless the affidavit is required to be made by virtue of some particular statute, it is not such an affidavit as is embraced within the section of the Revised Statutes denouncing the crime of perjury. We cannot concur in this view.
The decisions of this court constitute a very important part of "the laws" of this state, and, obviously, these decisions are not statutory laws.
In the case of the State v. Hornsby, 8 Rob. 583, 41 Am. Dec. 314, decided July, 1845, this court said: (Italics ours.)
The Hornsby Case has been repeatedly affirmed, and the right of a defendant to apply for a new trial in all criminal cases has been uniformly recognized and enforced by the decisions of this court.
Yet the law of this state which secures to the defendant the right to demand a new trial in criminal cases is derived neither from the Constitution nor from the statutes of this state. It emanates solely from the decisions of this court, which constitute a part of "the laws" of this state upon this important subject. Applications for new trials on the ground of newly discovered evidence must always be received with caution. The inducements to false swearing on the part of the person convicted are obvious, and therefore the rule is well settled that the unsupported affidavit of the accused to the motion is insufficient, and must be corroborated by the affidavits of other persons than the accused, and, if possible, by those of the newly-discovered witnesses themselves. Marr's Crim. Juris. vol. 2, § 713, citing numerous cases: State v. Louvier, 129 La. 924, 57 So. 270; State v. Sims, 117 La. 1036, 42 So. 494; State v. Jones, 112 La. 980, 36 So. 825; State v. Callian, 109 La. 346, 33 So. 363, etc.
The method of hearing motions for new trial is left to the discretion of the judge. If the reading of the motion imparts to him sufficient knowledge to enable him to intelligently dispose of the matter, he cannot be arbitrarily required to delay his ruling for the purpose of further hearing or argument. The accused is not entitled to compulsory process to obtain witnesses in support of his motion for a new trial and the examination of witnesses to prove newly-discovered evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge. Counter affidavits and evidence are admissible, as when it is sought to prove that a juror, who had been examined on his voir dire, had prior to the trial expressed an opinion as to the guilt of the accused. State v. Gauthreaux, 38 La.Ann. 608; State v. Boasso, 38 La.Ann. 202; State v. Jones, 46 La.Ann. 545, 15 So. 402; [1] State v. Cafiero, 112 La. 453, 36 So. 492, citing 1 Bish. New...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Brisban
... ... See, e.g., State v. Barfield, 292 So.2d 580, 582 (La.1974) ("An evidentiary hearing was not necessary and would have merely been repetitious because of the affidavit. The judge did not abuse his discretion in denying this motion."); State v. Varnado, 154 La. 575, 97 So. 865, 868 (1923) ("If the reading of the motion imparts to [the judge] sufficient knowledge to enable him to intelligently dispose of the matter, he cannot be arbitrarily required to delay his ruling for the purpose of further hearing or argument."); 2 State v. Jackson, 570 ... ...
-
State v. Delanueville
...examination of witnesses to prove newly-discovered evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge.Id. (quoting State v. Varnado, 154 La. 575, 97 So. 865, 868 (1923)). Additionally, the court noted that in State v. Barfield, 292 So.2d 580 (La.1974), the Louisiana Supreme Court found no......
-
State v. Davis
...and the examination of witnesses to prove newly-discovered evidence is within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Varnado, 154 La. 575, 97 So. 865, 868 (1923). In State v. Barfield, 292 So.2d 580 (La. 1974), the Supreme Court found no error when the trial court disposed of the motio......
-
State v. Snyder
...it therefore follows that, where no lawful oath is administered, the charge of perjury must be quashed. The state cites State v. Varnado, 154 La. 575, 97 So. 865 (1923). This case involved an indictment for perjury which had been quashed by the trial court on the ground that the indictment ......