State v. Meaux
State v. Meaux
Opinion of the Court
The accused was prosecuted for shooting with intent to kill, convicted and sentenced to three years at hard labor.
He appeals.
The only bill of exceptions found in the record recites that on the trial of the case a witness was called to the stand to prove that the shooting in question was accidental; that he was asked to state whether or not the shooting was accidental; that the district attorney objected to the question; and that the trial judge, in sustaining the obejction, said: — Unless the defendant can show that he had a right to have his pistol with him on the date charged in the indictment, no evidence will be allowed to prove that the shooting was accidental.
To this, the trial judge, in the "per curiam" part of the bill, says he made no such ruling as that set forth.
Ho note of the testimony and ruling made at the time was annexed to the bill.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- State of Louisiana v. Azorie Meaux
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Syllabus. A certain question was propounded to a witness who had been called to the stand by the defense. The State objected and the objection was sustained. A bill was reserved, but no note of the testimony offered, or of the judge’s ruling, was taken down at the time. Subsequently, on writing up the bill, counsel for the accused stated the ruling of the court to have been thus and so. Thereupon, in the ‘‘per curiam,’’ part of the bill, the judge declared he made no such ruling. Held — the rule is, in such case, to accept and act upon the statement of the judge. State vs. Moore, 38 La. Ann. 68.