State v. Mims

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Mims

127 So. 385, 170 La. 120, 1930 La. LEXIS 1682

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 5, 1930

DocketNo. 30422.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 So. 385 (State v. Mims) 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. Mims, 127 So. 385, 170 La. 120, 1930 La. LEXIS 1682 (La. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

ST. PAUL, J.

The appellants, I. D. Mims, Joe Mims, Henry Mims, and Jordan Mims, were convicted of murder without capital punishment. These four were indicted jointly with one Joe Mitchell. The latter entered a special plea •of insanity, and all further proceedings were stayed as to him.

When the case came up for trial as to the •other four, the appellants here, the state entered a nolle prosequi as to said Mitchell, and proceeded to use him as a witness against the other four.

Bill of exception No. 1 complains that the state had no right to nol. pros, as to the defendant Mitchell after the indictment had been read to the jury. Code Cr. Proe. art. 330. But we cannot see what interest the other four defendants, who have taken this appeal, can possibly have in that matter. Joe Mitchell is not complaining, nor would he be entitled to complain until an effort were made to reindict or retry him for the same offense.

Bills Nos. 2 and 3 complain that these appellants were taken by surprise when their codefendant, Joe Mitchell, was called as a witness against them, and should have been granted the continuance which they then sought for the purpose of inquiring into the credibility of said Mitchell and producing evidence to contradict him.

The bill is without merit. The evidence of Mitchell, whether on trial or not, was admissible against the other four defendants, and the fact that the other defendants were taken by surprise was no ground for a continuante; “an accused will hardly contend seriously that he is entitled to a continuance whenever legitimate evidence produced against him happens to take him by surprise.” State v. Hutchins, 149 La. 1077, 90 So. 410, 411. Were the accused entitled to a continuance under such circumstances, the result would be that the trial of criminal cases would become impossible, for an accused ■could always claim that the evidence produced against him has taken him by surprise; which is generally true, since the plea of not guilty imports on its face a belief on the part of the accused that the state lacks the necessary evidence to convict him.

Bill No. 4 presents nothing for the consideration of this court.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

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

ST. PAUL, J.

The appellants, I. D. Mims, Joe Mims, Henry Mims, and Jordan Mims, were convicted of murder without capital punishment. These four were indicted jointly with one Joe Mitchell. The latter entered a special plea •of insanity, and all further proceedings were stayed as to him.

When the case came up for trial as to the •other four, the appellants here, the state entered a nolle prosequi as to said Mitchell, and proceeded to use him as a witness against the other four.

Bill of exception No. 1 complains that the state had no right to nol. pros, as to the defendant Mitchell after the indictment had been read to the jury. Code Cr. Proe. art. 330. But we cannot see what interest the other four defendants, who have taken this appeal, can possibly have in that matter. Joe Mitchell is not complaining, nor would he be entitled to complain until an effort were made to reindict or retry him for the same offense.

Bills Nos. 2 and 3 complain that these appellants were taken by surprise when their codefendant, Joe Mitchell, was called as a witness against them, and should have been granted the continuance which they then sought for the purpose of inquiring into the credibility of said Mitchell and producing evidence to contradict him.

The bill is without merit. The evidence of Mitchell, whether on trial or not, was admissible against the other four defendants, and the fact that the other defendants were taken by surprise was no ground for a continuante; “an accused will hardly contend seriously that he is entitled to a continuance whenever legitimate evidence produced against him happens to take him by surprise.” State v. Hutchins, 149 La. 1077, 90 So. 410, 411. Were the accused entitled to a continuance under such circumstances, the result would be that the trial of criminal cases would become impossible, for an accused ■could always claim that the evidence produced against him has taken him by surprise; which is generally true, since the plea of not guilty imports on its face a belief on the part of the accused that the state lacks the necessary evidence to convict him.

Bill No. 4 presents nothing for the consideration of this court.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 So. 385, 170 La. 120, 1930 La. LEXIS 1682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mims-la-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack