State v. Washington

Decision Date01 January 1901
Docket Number14,482
Citation32 So. 396,108 La. 226
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE OF LOUISIANA v. GEORGE WASHINGTON ET AL

APPEAL from the Seventeenth Judicial District, Parish of Vermilion -- Gordy, Jr., J.

Walter Guion, Attorney General, and J. Nelson Greene, District Attorney (Lewis Guion, of Counsel), for Plaintiff, Appellee.

S. P Watts, for Defendant, Josepr Sonier, Appellant.

OPINION

BREAUX J.

George Washington and Joseph Sonier were jointly charged and indicted for murder by the Grand Jury of the Parish of Vermilion. Joseph Sonier presented a motion to the court for severance. It was allowed.

The case of Washington was called and tried and he was found guilty. The case of Sonier was then called and he, also, was tried and found guilty as charged "without capital punishment." He made application for a new trial, which was overruled. He was then sentenced to serve at hard labor in the penitentiary for the term of his natural life. He appeals.

In the first bill of exceptions taken by the defendant, Sonier, it is stated that no certified list of talesmen jurors had been served. The per curiam of the bill shows that the objection was overruled because the law does not require a certified list of talesmen to be served, and, besides, that service had been made as soon as possible in the regular course of the trial and the court, so far as practicable, had complied with the statute which requires service of the names of jurors on the regular panel. We copy the words of the court embodied in the bill: "Which objections were overruled by the court for the reason that the law does not require a certified list of talesmen to be served upon the defendant, and that counsel for defendant, by instruction of and in the presence, of the court and defendant was handed a list of the said talesmen by the sheriff before the completion of the panel and before the drawing from the talesmen to complete the panel has commenced." We have not found that the statute requires that any further service be made than was made in this instance.

We take up, in the second place, the following additional ground urged for a new trial before the District Court and again pressed on appeal before this court, viz: That George Washington, in testifying against the defendant here "thought it necessary to adhere to a statement made by him on the trial of his own case in order to escape the death penalty," and defendant annexes the affidavit of George Washington to his motion. This affidavit presents, for reasons apparent in a moment, a serious question.

It sets up that it was the impression of Washington, received from his attorney, that he was called upon to answer for manslaughter and not for murder, and that he was told by his attorney that he had "such an arrangement with the District Attorney as would, in the end, reduce the crime to manslaughter; that the consideration he was to receive for turning State's evidence was the penalty for manslaughter on condition of his implicating Joseph Sonier, the defendant here," as one of the murderers of Joseph Ozone; that when he went on the stand as a witness in his own behalf he testified, as before declared, and repeated this testimony afterward when he appeared before the court as a witness in the case against Joseph Sonier "believing, as I did, that it was part of the programme before my penalty could be rendered," and "in thus testifying that he swore to a falsehood, but only did so to save his own life and that he makes the affidavit" for the sole purpose of repairing the injury against Sonier and the wrongful infliction of punishment. The name of the young attorney who defended Washington, whose case is not before us, is signed by him as witness.

The trial judge, in his narrative of the case, embodied in the bill overruling the motion for a new trial, says that the motion for a new trial was overruled because the court considered that there was ample evidence to warrant the conviction, that the facts and circumstances "of the case showed the guilt of the accused" beyond any reasonable doubt, and that while it is shown by the affidavit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Dement v. Summer
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 10, 1936
    ... ... v. Homochitto Lbr. Co., 162 Miss. 20, 138 So. 564; Y. & ... M. V. R. Co. v. Pittman, 169 Miss. 667, 153 So. 382; ... Justice v. State, 170 Miss. 96, 154 So 265; ... Universal Truck Loading Co. v. Taylor, 164 So. 3 ... The ... court below erred in refusing to grant to ... 545, 64 S.W. 286; ... Myers v. State, 111 Ark. 399, 163 S.W. 1177; ... Dennis v. State, 103 Ind. 142, 2 N.E. 399; State ... v. Washington, 108 La. 226, 32 So. 396; State v ... Myers, 154 Minn. 242, 191 N.W. 597; State v ... Moberly, 121 Mo. 604, 26 S.W. 364; People v ... ...
  • Micker v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1934
    ... ... therefore the defendant did not receive the benefit of a fair ... Powell ... v. Com., 33 A. L. R. 553, note; Pettine v. New ... Mexico, 119 C. C. A. 581, 201 F. 489; Bussey v ... State, 69 Ark. 545, 64 S.W. 268; State v ... Washington, 108 La. 226, [168 Miss. 694] 32 So. 396; ... State v. Myers, 191 N.W. 597; State v ... Moberly, 26 S.W. 364; People v. Fridy, 31 ... N.Y.S. 399; State v. Powell, 98 P. 741; Buckner ... v. State, 32 So. 920, 81 Miss. 140; Watson v ... State, 50 So. 627, 96 Miss. 369; Middleton v ... State, ... ...
  • State v. Scruggs
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • January 18, 1928
    ...whereupon a correct list was served upon him before proceeding with the selection of the jury. The bill has no merit. State v. Washington, 108 La. 226, 32 So. 396. Bill No. 5 (transcript, 85). J. D. Hamilton challenged for cause. He stated that he had an impression about the case, not a fix......
  • State v. Folden
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1914
    ... ... was intended to discredit the prosecuting witness. Under such ... circumstances, the general rule is that a new trial will not ... be granted that such testimony may be admitted. State v ... Young, 107 La. 618, 31 So. 993; State v. Maxey, ... 107 La. 799, 32 So. 206; State v. Washington, 108 ... La. 226, 32 So. 396 ... The ... granting of a motion for a new trial is left largely to the ... discretion of the trial judge; and his refusal to grant such ... motion will not be reversed unless manifest error is shown ... State v. Pastor, 111 La. 717, 35 So. 839; State ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT