State v. Brannon
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Fifth District Court, Parish of Ouachita. Richardson, J. 1. In a prosecution for larceny, based upon finding the stolen property in defendants ' possession, the identity of the things stolen and found is essential. 2. The interference of the District Judge with defendant’s evidence to disprove that identity is capable of injuring her defense; and, if unlawful, is error, justifying a new trial. 3. The District Judge has no right to interfere in the evidence…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Fifth District Court, Parish of Ouachita. Richardson, J. 1. In a prosecution for larceny, based upon finding the stolen property in defendants ' possession, the identity of the things stolen and found is essential. 2. The interference of the District Judge with defendant’s evidence to disprove that identity is capable of injuring her defense; and, if unlawful, is error, justifying a new trial. 3. The District Judge has no right to interfere in the evidence and cross-examine defendant’s witnesses, because that is the duty of the District Attorney alone, and the Judge, must…
1Opinion of the Court
Tlie opinion, of tlie Court was delivered by
Todd, J.
Tlie defendant was indicted for larceny, and after trial and conviction, was sentenced to work upon tbe streets of Monroe for sixty days, and to pay costs, and in default of their payment, was condemned to work twenty days longer. From this sentence she has appealed.
1- Tbe accused first complains of the action of tbe Judge who presided at tbe trial, in interrogating a witness, after tbe examination of sncli witness on tbe part of the State and defense, bad closed.
The accused ivas charged with stealing a mirror, and the point in question will…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In re SweatmanNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Drew v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836