State v. Behler

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Behler

50 So. 483, 124 La. 499, 1909 La. LEXIS 487

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 18, 1909

DocketNo. 17,838

StatusPublished

This text of 50 So. 483 (State v. Behler) 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. Behler, 50 So. 483, 124 La. 499, 1909 La. LEXIS 487 (La. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

MONROE, J.

Defendant was prosecuted, by bill of information, and convicted of in- ■ cest, and presents his case to this court upon a bill of exception, reserved to the overruling of a motion for new trial; the ground relied on being that, it having been charged that the crime was committed on May 15, 1908, the prosecuting witness testified, on the trial, that it was committed on May 27, 1908, and the district attorney was permitted to amend the bill of information accordingly, and over the protest of the then counsel for defendant, who was taken by surprise, and that, had defendant been charged originally with the commission of the crime on May 27th, he would have been prepared to establish his innocence.

No bill was reserved when the amendment was allowed, and no surprise suggested. The objection, bill of exception, and plea of surprise came too late in the motion for new trial. Marr’s Criminal Jurisprudence, §§ 249, 483, 489; State v. Terrebonne, 45 La. Ann. 25, 12 South. 315; State v. Robinson, 37 La. Ann. 673; State v. Green, 115 La. 1042, 40 South. 451; State v. Hauser, 112 La. 313, 36 South. 396; State v. Henderson, 113 La. 232, 36 South. 950; State v. Michel, 111 La. 438, 35 South. 629.

Judgment affirmed.

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

MONROE, J.

Defendant was prosecuted, by bill of information, and convicted of in- ■ cest, and presents his case to this court upon a bill of exception, reserved to the overruling of a motion for new trial; the ground relied on being that, it having been charged that the crime was committed on May 15, 1908, the prosecuting witness testified, on the trial, that it was committed on May 27, 1908, and the district attorney was permitted to amend the bill of information accordingly, and over the protest of the then counsel for defendant, who was taken by surprise, and that, had defendant been charged originally with the commission of the crime on May 27th, he would have been prepared to establish his innocence.

No bill was reserved when the amendment was allowed, and no surprise suggested. The objection, bill of exception, and plea of surprise came too late in the motion for new trial. Marr’s Criminal Jurisprudence, §§ 249, 483, 489; State v. Terrebonne, 45 La. Ann. 25, 12 South. 315; State v. Robinson, 37 La. Ann. 673; State v. Green, 115 La. 1042, 40 South. 451; State v. Hauser, 112 La. 313, 36 South. 396; State v. Henderson, 113 La. 232, 36 South. 950; State v. Michel, 111 La. 438, 35 South. 629.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 So. 483, 124 La. 499, 1909 La. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-behler-la-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack