State v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Wilson

38 So. 397, 114 La. 398, 1905 La. LEXIS 474

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 27, 1905

DocketNo. 15,555

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 38 So. 397 (State v. Wilson) 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. Wilson, 38 So. 397, 114 La. 398, 1905 La. LEXIS 474 (La. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

_ PROVOSTY, J.

Defendant was found guilty of murder, was sentenced to death, and he appeals.

His sole complaint is that his motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence was overruled. The newly discovered evidence was alleged to be that of Dr. Wise, to the effect that, whereas on the trial he testified that the deceased had died of the gunshot wound inflicted by the defendant, he would now testify that the death had resulted from pneumonia.

On the trial of the motion for new trial Dr. Wise testified that the wound inflicted by the deceased caused the pneumonia of which the deceased died; that she would not have had the pneumonia if she had not been wounded; that the pneumonia was the immediate cause of the death, but the wound was the prime cause.

Dr. Lassiter testified that he also had testified before the jury touching the cause of the death of the deceased; that he testified that the woman died of traumatic pneumonia caused by the wound. He testifies further that she would not have had this pneumonia if she had not been wounded.

We think the motion was properly overruled. The newly discovered evidence could be but corroborative of that of Dr. Lassiter given before the jury, and so was merely cumulative. And, in the second place, the testimony of Dr. Wise on the new trial, far from showing good grounds for setting aside the verdict, shows, on the contrary, good ground for affirming it. It is to the effect that the wound caused the pneumonia, and that without the wound the deceased would not have had the pneumonia. If so, it was the wound that caused the death. It is not essential that the act of the defendant should have been the sole cause of the death; if it hastened the termination of life, or con tributed, mediately or immediately, to the death, in a degree sufficient to be a clearly contributing cause, that is sufficient State v. Matthews, 38 La. Ann. 795.

Judgment affirmed.

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

_ PROVOSTY, J.

Defendant was found guilty of murder, was sentenced to death, and he appeals.

His sole complaint is that his motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence was overruled. The newly discovered evidence was alleged to be that of Dr. Wise, to the effect that, whereas on the trial he testified that the deceased had died of the gunshot wound inflicted by the defendant, he would now testify that the death had resulted from pneumonia.

On the trial of the motion for new trial Dr. Wise testified that the wound inflicted by the deceased caused the pneumonia of which the deceased died; that she would not have had the pneumonia if she had not been wounded; that the pneumonia was the immediate cause of the death, but the wound was the prime cause.

Dr. Lassiter testified that he also had testified before the jury touching the cause of the death of the deceased; that he testified that the woman died of traumatic pneumonia caused by the wound. He testifies further that she would not have had this pneumonia if she had not been wounded.

We think the motion was properly overruled. The newly discovered evidence could be but corroborative of that of Dr. Lassiter given before the jury, and so was merely cumulative. And, in the second place, the testimony of Dr. Wise on the new trial, far from showing good grounds for setting aside the verdict, shows, on the contrary, good ground for affirming it. It is to the effect that the wound caused the pneumonia, and that without the wound the deceased would not have had the pneumonia. If so, it was the wound that caused the death. It is not essential that the act of the defendant should have been the sole cause of the death; if it hastened the termination of life, or con tributed, mediately or immediately, to the death, in a degree sufficient to be a clearly contributing cause, that is sufficient State v. Matthews, 38 La. Ann. 795.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 So. 397, 114 La. 398, 1905 La. LEXIS 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wilson-la-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack