Court Opinion

ID: 9678567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:23:18.02406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:05.261730
License: Public Domain

*675On Rehearing
Appellant seems to take our remark as to exceptions to rulings being needless under Act No. 44, April 1, 1955, supra, fn. 1, that we are emasculating the vitality of the act by requiring the use of the formulary phrase, “I object.”
This was not our intent. Rather, we were merely pointing out that on the voir dire the court’s ruling was prima facie •correct. If this prima facie qualification did not please or persuade defense counsel, it is our view that counsel should have asked (moved, requested or perhaps suggested) that the court question the proffered witness further along lines of the Devil, Hell, the meaning of an oath or affirmation and the like. Or that counsel be permitted to propound such inquiries either through the court or directly to the boy.
Merely to ask for an exception is in this context an indication of intellectual dissent and not a prayer for further qualificatory investigation.
Application overruled.