No. 26146 Precedential Processed

State v. Davis

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed November 22, 1923 · 98 So. 422

Cited by

Christian v. Christian 535 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Southern Builders, Inc. v. Carla Charcoal, Inc. 357 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
State v. Doucet 5 So. 2d 894 La. 1942
State v. Hutton 3 So. 2d 549 La. 1941
State v. Henry 3 So. 2d 104 La. 1941
State v. Phillips 106 So. 375 La. 1925

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Bordelon 141 La. 611
State v. Banta 122 La. 235
State v. Morgan 142 La. 755
State v. Simone 154 La. 73

Opinion text

ST. PAUL, J. I concur in the decree. An accused is certainly entitled to be tried before an impartial judge (State v. Bordelon, 141 La. 611 , 75 South. 429 ); and a judge, who is the personal enemy of the accused, and so “biased and prejudiced” that he cannot give him a fair trial, is clearly not an impartial judge. State v. Banta, 122 La. 235 , 47 South. 538 . But a baid allegation that the judge is a personal enemy of the accused is frivolous, unless time, place, and circumstance of the alleged enmity be set forth, to the end that it may be determined whether such allegation be a fact or a mere meretricious attempt to evade trial presently or before a particular judge primarily vested with jurisdiction to try the accused. State v. Morgan, 142 La. 755 , 77 South. 588 . In State v. Simone, 154 La. 73 , 97 South. 302 , the accused did set forth (whether truthfully or falsely, as might be determined on trial) time, place, and circumstance on which he relied to establish the alleged enmity and bias of the district judge. But in this ease we find only a bald allegation of enmity, without time, place, or circumstance set forth. ' I therefore concur in the decree. DAWKINS, J., concurs in this opinion.