State v. Baker

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Baker

43 La. Ann. 1168

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedDecember 15, 1891

DocketNo. 10,877

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 La. Ann. 1168 (State v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Baker, 43 La. Ann. 1168 (La. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fenner, J.

The only complaint brought to our notice by this record arises under a bill of exceptions taken to the ruling of the court in permitting a question propounded to the accused on his cross-examination by the State, which was objected to on the ground that the question related to matter about which he had not been asked and had not testified in his direct examination.

The statement of the judge, appended to the bill, clearly shows that the question related to a subject closely connected with the matters testified about in the direct examination, and this is suffl■cient. State vs. Paynier, 36 An. 573; State vs Stuart, 35 An. 1015.

The rule never went further than to restrain the State from cross-examining defendant’s witnesses on matters not connected with [1169]*1169matters' statéd’óri:thb'examination in 'chief.' "’1 Green]eaf 'Ev.,' p. 521, No. 445; State vs. Swayze, 30 An. 1323;- State' vs. Thomas, 32 An. 349; State vs.'Willingham, 33 An. 538*. ' '

The case hereW entirely without the inhibition. '

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fenner, J.

The only complaint brought to our notice by this record arises under a bill of exceptions taken to the ruling of the court in permitting a question propounded to the accused on his cross-examination by the State, which was objected to on the ground that the question related to matter about which he had not been asked and had not testified in his direct examination.

The statement of the judge, appended to the bill, clearly shows that the question related to a subject closely connected with the matters testified about in the direct examination, and this is suffl■cient. State vs. Paynier, 36 An. 573; State vs Stuart, 35 An. 1015.

The rule never went further than to restrain the State from cross-examining defendant’s witnesses on matters not connected with [1169]*1169matters' statéd’óri:thb'examination in 'chief.' "’1 Green]eaf 'Ev.,' p. 521, No. 445; State vs. Swayze, 30 An. 1323;- State' vs. Thomas, 32 An. 349; State vs.'Willingham, 33 An. 538*. ' '

The case hereW entirely without the inhibition. '

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 La. Ann. 1168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-baker-la-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack