State v. Varnado

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Varnado

50 So. 661, 124 La. 711, 1909 La. LEXIS 533

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 15, 1909

DocketNo. 17,729

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 50 So. 661 (State v. Varnado) 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. Varnado, 50 So. 661, 124 La. 711, 1909 La. LEXIS 533 (La. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PROVOSTY, J.

After the jury had been impaneled and sworn, and the indictment read to them, they were discharged without verdict rendered, owing to the judge being ill and not likely to be well enough for several days to hold court. Defendants now claim that they were put in jeopardy by said mistrial, and cannot be put in jeopardy a second time, and should be discharged. It is well recognized that there has been no jeopardy when the discharge of the jury has been from necessity. State v. Robinson, 46 La. Ann. 773, 15 South. 146. And it is clear that there is such necessity when, as in the present case, the trial being for a capital offense, the jury cannot be allowed to separate, and would have to be kept together indefinitely to await the recovery of the judge. 12 Cyc. 271; People v. Hunckeler, 48 Cal. 334. No provision has been made by our law for some one else to take the place of the judge in such a case.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PROVOSTY, J.

After the jury had been impaneled and sworn, and the indictment read to them, they were discharged without verdict rendered, owing to the judge being ill and not likely to be well enough for several days to hold court. Defendants now claim that they were put in jeopardy by said mistrial, and cannot be put in jeopardy a second time, and should be discharged. It is well recognized that there has been no jeopardy when the discharge of the jury has been from necessity. State v. Robinson, 46 La. Ann. 773, 15 South. 146. And it is clear that there is such necessity when, as in the present case, the trial being for a capital offense, the jury cannot be allowed to separate, and would have to be kept together indefinitely to await the recovery of the judge. 12 Cyc. 271; People v. Hunckeler, 48 Cal. 334. No provision has been made by our law for some one else to take the place of the judge in such a case.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 So. 661, 124 La. 711, 1909 La. LEXIS 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-varnado-la-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack