No. 29739. Precedential Processed

State v. Stickney

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed February 11, 1929 · 120 So. 853

Cited by

State of Louisiana v. Eric Harrison La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Palmer 447 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Simms 381 So. 2d 472 La. 1980
State v. Brumfield 329 So. 2d 181 La. 1976
State v. McQueen 278 So. 2d 114 La. 1973
State v. Shilow 215 So. 2d 828 La. 1968
State v. Viator 167 So. 2d 374 La. 1964
State v. Green 150 So. 2d 571 La. 1963
State v. Murphy 102 So. 2d 61 La. 1957
State v. Warlick 155 So. 460 La. 1934

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Rock 162 La. 299

Opinion text

O’NIELL, C. J. (dissenting). The rulings complained of in bills Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 appear to me to be contrary to the doctrine announced in State v. Rock, 162 La. 299 , 110 So. 482 . The Act 167 of 1916, p. 379, after declaring that a person charged with crime shall, at his own request but not otherwise, be deemed a competent witness, declares: “And his neglect or refusal to testify shall not create any presumption against him.” Therefore, to say that a person charged with larceny, and proven to have had possession of the stolen property, bears the burden of proving that he got possession of the property honestly, is the same as to say—in a case where the person so charged did not see fit to testify—that his neglect or refusal to testify shall create a presumption against him. That is the substance of what we decided in State v. Rock. Therefore I respectfully dissent from the decision in this case.