State v. Burke

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Burke

92 So. 888, 152 La. 255, 1922 La. LEXIS 2879

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 22, 1922

DocketNo. 25255

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 So. 888 (State v. Burke) 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. Burke, 92 So. 888, 152 La. 255, 1922 La. LEXIS 2879 (La. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

, Defendant was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $30 and costs and to serve 30 days in jail for violating Act No. 39 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), known as the “Hood Bill.” The charge is that he “did willfully and unlawfully have and possess intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes.”

The first bill of exception is to the overruling by the trial court of a motion for a new trial. The motion alleges that the verdict of the court is contrary to the law and evidence, and, further:

“That a carpenter, Will Harris, who was working near the building in which the whisky is supposed to.have'been found, will testify, if defendant is granted a new trial, that the boy from whom the whisky was taken did not come out of the house of defendant with the whisky; that this is newly discovered evidence and should be heard by the court.”

[1] The motion was signed by the attorneys of the accused, and is not sworn to. There was no affidavit from the newly discovered witness nor proof of any kind offered to show that the witness would testify, to. the facts stated. Moreover, the motion fails to show that the defendant was not aware of the purported testimony before his trial, or that he exercised any diligence whatever to ascertain the alleged facts. The trial judge states that the question as to' where the boy with the whisky came from, was gone into on the trial of the case, and that the testimony of the witness'Harris would be- only cumulative.

[257]*257[2] Motions for new trials are addressed largely to the discretion of the presiding judge, and his ruling in denying the motion will not be disturbed unless manifest error is shown. The motion in the instant case was properly overruled.

The second bill of exception is to the overruling of a motion in arrest of judgment. It is alleged that Act No. 39 of 1921 is unconstitutional, for the reason that said act attempts to adopt, by reference, a definition of intoxicating liquors as contained in federal legislation. This question was disposed of adversely to the contention of defendant in the case of E. C. Coco (our No. 25226) 92 South. 883,¹ in the opinion handed down on May 15, 1922. The charge against the defendant, as shown by the evidence, was that of having whisky in his possession for beverage purposes.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

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

THOMPSON, J.

, Defendant was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $30 and costs and to serve 30 days in jail for violating Act No. 39 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), known as the “Hood Bill.” The charge is that he “did willfully and unlawfully have and possess intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes.”

The first bill of exception is to the overruling by the trial court of a motion for a new trial. The motion alleges that the verdict of the court is contrary to the law and evidence, and, further:

“That a carpenter, Will Harris, who was working near the building in which the whisky is supposed to.have'been found, will testify, if defendant is granted a new trial, that the boy from whom the whisky was taken did not come out of the house of defendant with the whisky; that this is newly discovered evidence and should be heard by the court.”

[1] The motion was signed by the attorneys of the accused, and is not sworn to. There was no affidavit from the newly discovered witness nor proof of any kind offered to show that the witness would testify, to. the facts stated. Moreover, the motion fails to show that the defendant was not aware of the purported testimony before his trial, or that he exercised any diligence whatever to ascertain the alleged facts. The trial judge states that the question as to' where the boy with the whisky came from, was gone into on the trial of the case, and that the testimony of the witness'Harris would be- only cumulative.

[257]*257[2] Motions for new trials are addressed largely to the discretion of the presiding judge, and his ruling in denying the motion will not be disturbed unless manifest error is shown. The motion in the instant case was properly overruled.

The second bill of exception is to the overruling of a motion in arrest of judgment. It is alleged that Act No. 39 of 1921 is unconstitutional, for the reason that said act attempts to adopt, by reference, a definition of intoxicating liquors as contained in federal legislation. This question was disposed of adversely to the contention of defendant in the case of E. C. Coco (our No. 25226) 92 South. 883,¹ in the opinion handed down on May 15, 1922. The charge against the defendant, as shown by the evidence, was that of having whisky in his possession for beverage purposes.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 So. 888, 152 La. 255, 1922 La. LEXIS 2879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-burke-la-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack