State v. Broussard

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Broussard

63 So. 390, 133 La. 884, 1913 La. LEXIS 2112

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 9, 1913

DocketNo. 19,937

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 63 So. 390 (State v. Broussard) 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. Broussard, 63 So. 390, 133 La. 884, 1913 La. LEXIS 2112 (La. 1913).

Pincite

Opinions

MONROE, J.

Defendant was convicted, under Act No. 226, of 1912, of being a male person, without visible means of support, who is feloniously living with a prostitute, and was sentenced to imprisonment for six months. He has made no appearancé in this court, in person or by counsel, and the only bill of exception that we find in the transcript is one reading, in part, as follows:

“Be it remembered that * * * the defendant * * * filed a motion for new trial *. * * on the ground that the verdict of the jury * * * was contrary to the law and the evidence, in that the state failed to'prove that the party with whom the defendant was alleged to have lived was a prostitute, at and during the time that defendant is alleged to have lived with her.”

[1] The question thus presented being merely one of fact, this court is without jurisdiction to review the finding of the jury thereon. The verdict and sentence appealed from are, accordingly, affirmed.

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

MONROE, J.

Defendant was convicted, under Act No. 226, of 1912, of being a male person, without visible means of support, who is feloniously living with a prostitute, and was sentenced to imprisonment for six months. He has made no appearancé in this court, in person or by counsel, and the only bill of exception that we find in the transcript is one reading, in part, as follows:

“Be it remembered that * * * the defendant * * * filed a motion for new trial *. * * on the ground that the verdict of the jury * * * was contrary to the law and the evidence, in that the state failed to'prove that the party with whom the defendant was alleged to have lived was a prostitute, at and during the time that defendant is alleged to have lived with her.”

[1] The question thus presented being merely one of fact, this court is without jurisdiction to review the finding of the jury thereon. The verdict and sentence appealed from are, accordingly, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 So. 390, 133 La. 884, 1913 La. LEXIS 2112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-broussard-la-1913.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack