State v. William
| Decision Date | 26 February 1912 |
| Docket Number | 19,196 |
| Citation | 130 La. 280,57 So. 927 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAM |
Appeal from Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; Robert S. Ellis, Judge.
King William, alias King John, was convicted of assault with intent to rape, and appeals. Affirmed.
T. M Bankston, M. J. Allen, and F. W. Sherman, for appellant.
Walter Guion, Atty. Gen., and W. H. McClendon, Dist. Atty. (G. A Gondran, of counsel), for the State.
The grand jurors of Tangipahoa found a true bill against King William alias King John, charging that on the 5th day of August, 1910, he made an assault upon Luberta Lewis, a child under 12 years, with felonious intent of committing rape.
He was tried and found guilty as charged, and recommended to the mercy of the court.
A motion for a new trial was filed, in which several grounds were averred to set aside the verdict, the most important of which was that the prosecuting witness was not a competent witness. This is the only ground argued in the brief of learned counsel for defendant.
The motion for a new trial was overruled.
On the 25th day of October, 1911, the court sentenced him to serve a term of five years in the penitentiary.
Several bills of exceptions were reserved.
In the first bill of exceptions, the defendant, through his counsel, urge that Luberta Lewis, the prosecuting witness, was not a competent witness by reason of her not knowing the meaning of an oath, and that she was too ignorant to testify on account of her tender years.
The court overruled defendant's objection to this testimony, and ruled that she could testify.
She was examined as a witness on her voir dire to test her competency; her testimony was annexed to the bill of exceptions.
The learned judge states in one of the bills of exceptions that she was seven to eight years of age; others thought that she was about six years old. When questioned about her father and mother, she testified intelligently enough. She talked of her father and mother and places to which she had been; her testimony about these was clear and succinct enough.
Questioned about the school she had attended, she had forgotten the name of her teacher. She said that it was some time since she had attended school; she did not know how long it was since she left school. She said that her father had taken her some time ago to Baton Rouge, then to Pontchatoula, and named persons at whose places she had stayed. She remembered sugar cane time, but at first knew nothing about Christmas, but said she was in Tangipahoa last Christmas and last "sugar cane time." When asked:
"How do you know that?"
Her answer was:
"I got some things Santa Claus brought me."
She failed to answer some of the questions that a child of her age should have answered. Toward the end of her testimony, she answered more satisfactorily.
After counsel had examined her as a witness, the court asked her:
"Q. If I were to tell you, little girl, that there is a box of candy in this drawer [indicating drawer in his desk], and you looked at it and did not find one there, what would that be?
A. A story.
Q. That would be a story?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If I was to tell you that there was a box of candy in this drawer, and you were to look into it and find it there, what would that be?
A. That would be the truth."
At another time, asked what would become of her if she told a story now, her answer was, "To the bad man."
Taking her answers together, we have concluded that the trial judge did not err in permitting her to testify. She had understanding enough to be a witness as to what attempts had been made on her person in connection with the charge brought against the defendant.
This court (Justice Parlange was the organ), in a case of the nature of the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carricut
...truth? A. Yes, sir." Whereupon counsel for the accused objected, as aforesaid, and the court overruled his objection. In State v. William, 130 La. 280, 57 So. 927, this court said: "A wise discretion is left to the trial judge in deciding the competency of a child of tender years to testify......
-
State v. Glover
...263 So.2d 866 ... 262 La. 495 ... STATE of Louisiana ... Henry Earl GLOVER ... No. 51626 ... Supreme Court of Louisiana ... June 29, 1972 ... [262 La. 498] ... Robert J. Stamps, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant ... William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee ... DIXON, Justice ... Defendant, Henry Earl Glover, appeals his conviction and sentence for resisting an officer (R.S ... ...
-
State v. Francis
...337 So.2d 487 ... STATE of Louisiana ... Roy FRANCIS ... No. 57712 ... Supreme Court of Louisiana ... Sept. 13, 1976 ... Lyall G. Shiell, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant ... William J. Guste, Jr. Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, ... William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee ... MARCUS, Justice ... Roy Francis was charged by bill of information with the ... ...
-
State v. Pace
...hear the child. State v. Nails, 255 La. 1070, 234 So.2d 184 (1970); State v. Milford, 225 La. 611, 73 So.2d 778 (1954); State v. William, 130 La. 280, 57 So. 927 (1912). In State v. Milford, supra, this Court upheld a ruling that a seven-year-old child was a competent witness. In State v. N......