TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Duck

The State of Louisiana v. Charles B. Duck

State v. Duck, 35 La. Ann. 764 (1883)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1883
Docket
No. 8883
Judges
Poché
Citations
35 La. Ann. 764
Headnotes
The Supreme Court has no power, and will never attempt, to Interfere with the discretion of ,,; District'Judges in their manner of controlling their courts, or of enforcing rules of decor-rum, or propriety therein. Hence, the Court will not entertain a complaint that the District Judge erroneously refused ‘ to stop an attorney in the course of his argument, on the ground that his argument was unfair, improper or unbecoming. . * The charge that the acchsed is presumed innocent, until the contrary is proven beyond a rea* sonable doubt, and that he is entitled to the benefit of a doubt, if it be substantial, is good law, and sufficiently liberal to the accused.
Summary
A PPEAL from the Twelfth District Court, Parish of Grant. Bar-, XX bm, J.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Poché

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by , Poché, J.

This appeal is taken by Duck, one of the defendants,who presents his complaint in the form of two bills of exceptions:

... 1. He charges error in the refusal of the District Judge to stop the. District Attorney in the course of the latter’s argument, at the request, of counsel for accused, charging that the District Attorney was making an improper and unfair argument to the jury. *765 There is no force in this complaint; This Court cannot, and will nob interfere with District Judges in the manner of controlling their courts, or of enforcing rules of propriety and decorum on the officers, of the court. . ■ • . ■ ' ;

2. The defendant next complains of the refusal of the Judge to give the following charge •: “It is. incumbent On the State to make; their prosecution certain, and to make it probable is not enough,” instead of which the Court charged the jury as follows : “ The law considers everybody innocent until the contrary is proven beyond a reasonable doubt; that the doubt must be a substantial doubt; and if they had a, doubt of the guilt of the accused, they were entitled to it, and should render a verdict of not guilty.”

, The charge is as liberal to the accused as they could possibly expect. It embodies principles of criminal law which are its ancient in this State as crime itself.

■ It leaves no ground of complaint to the accused, whose appeal is entirely without merit; .

• Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1905: 11942: 11943: 119052026peak 1905 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Augusta7 So. 2d 177 (La. 1942)
  2. State v. Young38 So. 517 (La. 1905)
  3. State v. Tucker15 So. 2d 854 (La. 1943)

Most recent

  1. State v. Tucker15 So. 2d 854 (La. 1943)
  2. State v. Augusta7 So. 2d 177 (La. 1942)
  3. State v. Young38 So. 517 (La. 1905)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list