State v. Antee

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Antee

147 So. 11, 176 La. 847

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedFebruary 27, 1933

DocketNo. 32226.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 147 So. 11 (State v. Antee) 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. Antee, 147 So. 11, 176 La. 847 (La. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The defendant has appealed from a conviction and sentence for violation of the prohibition law, known as the Hood Act, being Act No. 39 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), as amended by Act No. 57 of 1924. After conviction but before sentence he filed a motion in arrest of judgment, contending that the Hood Act was re-' pealed by Act No. 238 of 1932. The district attorney then pleaded ■ that the act of 1932 was unconstitutional. The district judge held that the act of 1932 was unconstitutional, and he therefore overruled the motion in arrest of judgment.

We decided to-day in State v. Herbert Watkins, 176 La. 837, 147 So. 8, that Act No. 238 of 1932 was unconstitutional and that the Hood Act was therefore yet in effect.

For the reasons given in that case, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

ST. PAUL, J., absent because of illness.

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

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The defendant has appealed from a conviction and sentence for violation of the prohibition law, known as the Hood Act, being Act No. 39 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), as amended by Act No. 57 of 1924. After conviction but before sentence he filed a motion in arrest of judgment, contending that the Hood Act was re-' pealed by Act No. 238 of 1932. The district attorney then pleaded ■ that the act of 1932 was unconstitutional. The district judge held that the act of 1932 was unconstitutional, and he therefore overruled the motion in arrest of judgment.

We decided to-day in State v. Herbert Watkins, 176 La. 837, 147 So. 8, that Act No. 238 of 1932 was unconstitutional and that the Hood Act was therefore yet in effect.

For the reasons given in that case, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

ST. PAUL, J., absent because of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 11, 176 La. 847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-antee-la-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack