State v. Wright

• Decision Date: 01 January 1900
• Docket Number: 13,645
• Citation: 104 La. 44,28 So. 909
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE OF LOUISIANA v. YOUNG WRIGHT

28 So. 909

104 La. 44

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. YOUNG WRIGHT

No. 13,645

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 1, 1900

APPEAL from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lincoln -- Dawkins, J..

Walter Guion, Attorney General, and F. F. Preaus, District Attorney (Lewis Guion, of Counsel,), for Plaintiff, Appellee.

Barksdale & Barksdale, for Defendant, Appellant.

OPINION

BLANCHARD J.

The defendant was indicted for wilfully and feloniously, with a dangerous weapon -- a pistol -- shooting one Quincy LeGrand with intent to kill.

He was convicted and appeals from a sentence of twelve months at hard labor.

The case comes up on two bills of exception. Both are predicated upon motions for a new trial.

In the first motion, as grounds for a new trial, it was averred the court, to the prejudice of the accused, had charged the jury that one of two verdicts only could be returned -- "guilty," or "not guilty."

The motion was overruled and a bill taken.

The contention of the accused is that this charge was error; that besides the verdict of "guilty," or "not guilty," it was within the province of the jury, under the law and the indictment, to have found a verdict of "assault with a dangerous weapon," or of "assault with intent to kill," or of simple "assault."

The judge, in the bill, says the failure to charge that other verdicts than that of "guilty," or "not guilty," could be found, was an oversight, but that neither defendant nor his counsel, both present at the time raised any objection, and that, at the close of the charge, to the inquiry from the bench whether or not he desired any special charge given, counsel replied in the negative.

Ruling -- This objection comes too late, when raised for the first time, on a motion for new trial. The court's charge was not in writing. The objection should have been raised at the time the charge was given, or at once upon its conclusion, and a bill then and there reserved. The accused cannot be permitted to take his chances of acquittal under the charge as delivered, and afterwards, when the chance goes against him, object to the charge and urge it as grounds for new trial. State vs. Bird, 38 La.Ann. 497; 35 La.Ann. 773; 34 La.Ann. 106, 1213; 45 La.Ann. 42; 41 La.Ann. 1066; 39 La.Ann. 229; 30 La.Ann. 536; 29 La.Ann. 364.

An exception to the above is made in capital cases. For instance, in murder trials the charge of the court to the jury must inform them that should they find the accused to be guilty of murder they may, in their discretion, qualify their verdict by the addendum "without capital punishment," or may, on an indictment for murder, bring in a verdict for manslaughter; and the failure to do this may be taken advantage of later, though not excepted to at the time of the charge. State vs. Brown, 40 La.Ann. 725; State vs. Obregon, 10 La.Ann. 799; State vs. Brown, 41 La.Ann. 410; State vs. Jones, 46 La.Ann. 1395; State vs. Thomas, 50 La.Ann. 148.

In the latter case, which was a murder trial, the court, on page 155, said, in substance, that the rule is...