Lewis ex rel. Lewis v. Henderson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Lewis ex rel. Lewis v. Henderson

251 So. 2d 639, 259 La. 691, 1971 La. LEXIS 4008

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedAugust 17, 1971

DocketNo. 51550

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 251 So. 2d 639 (Lewis ex rel. Lewis v. Henderson) 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

Lewis ex rel. Lewis v. Henderson, 251 So. 2d 639, 259 La. 691, 1971 La. LEXIS 4008 (La. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Writ denied.

At the evidentiary hearing below,, the proof shows that counsel was present: with the defendants at their sentencing, and' we cannot say that the trial court erred in accepting the testimony of counsel that he-was present, and the testimony of the general practice of the court in requiring counsel to be present, as disproving the allegations of the petition to the contrary'.

With regard to the averment that the indictment was fatally defective because not endorsed by the foreman of the grand jury, see State v. Stoma, 199 La. 529, 6 So.2d 650, former La.R.S. 15:3 (1950), cf. La.C.Crim.P: art. • 383,- we find, based on the evidence at the evidentiary hearing, that the grand jury indictments were signed by the foreman of the grand jury at the time the indictments were returned. This satisfies the requirement of La.C. Crim.P. Art. 383 that the indictment must “[be] endorsed ‘a true bill,’ and the endorsement must be signed by the foreman”. The endorsement “A True Bill” may be printed, as here, or typed — it need not be handwritten by the foreman — before it is signed by the foreman of the grand jury.

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

PER CURIAM.

Writ denied.

At the evidentiary hearing below,, the proof shows that counsel was present: with the defendants at their sentencing, and' we cannot say that the trial court erred in accepting the testimony of counsel that he-was present, and the testimony of the general practice of the court in requiring counsel to be present, as disproving the allegations of the petition to the contrary'.

With regard to the averment that the indictment was fatally defective because not endorsed by the foreman of the grand jury, see State v. Stoma, 199 La. 529, 6 So.2d 650, former La.R.S. 15:3 (1950), cf. La.C.Crim.P: art. • 383,- we find, based on the evidence at the evidentiary hearing, that the grand jury indictments were signed by the foreman of the grand jury at the time the indictments were returned. This satisfies the requirement of La.C. Crim.P. Art. 383 that the indictment must “[be] endorsed ‘a true bill,’ and the endorsement must be signed by the foreman”. The endorsement “A True Bill” may be printed, as here, or typed — it need not be handwritten by the foreman — before it is signed by the foreman of the grand jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 So. 2d 639, 259 La. 691, 1971 La. LEXIS 4008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-ex-rel-lewis-v-henderson-la-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack