State v. Brackin

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Brackin

107 So. 105, 160 La. 268, 1926 La. LEXIS 2357

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJanuary 4, 1926

DocketNo. 27632.

StatusPublished

This text of 107 So. 105 (State v. Brackin) 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. Brackin, 107 So. 105, 160 La. 268, 1926 La. LEXIS 2357 (La. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

ROGERS, J.

The defendant appeals from a conviction and sentence'for obtaining money and property under false pretenses. Motions to quash and in arrest of judgment were filed and overruled. In these motions it was urged that the information under *269 which defendant was tried and convicted did not charge any offense known to the law of the state of Louisiana, since it did not affirmatively set out in what particular the alleged false pretense or representation was false and untrue, nor did it aver the intent to defraud. Counsel for the state, in submitting the case, admitted in open court the correctness of defendant’s contention. As these necessary ingredients were omitted, the information is not good.

For the reasons assigned, the verdict and sentence appealed from are annulled, and it is now ordered that the information be quashed and the defendant discharged.

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

ROGERS, J.

The defendant appeals from a conviction and sentence'for obtaining money and property under false pretenses. Motions to quash and in arrest of judgment were filed and overruled. In these motions it was urged that the information under *269 which defendant was tried and convicted did not charge any offense known to the law of the state of Louisiana, since it did not affirmatively set out in what particular the alleged false pretense or representation was false and untrue, nor did it aver the intent to defraud. Counsel for the state, in submitting the case, admitted in open court the correctness of defendant’s contention. As these necessary ingredients were omitted, the information is not good.

For the reasons assigned, the verdict and sentence appealed from are annulled, and it is now ordered that the information be quashed and the defendant discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 So. 105, 160 La. 268, 1926 La. LEXIS 2357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brackin-la-1926.