State v. Crenshaw

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Crenshaw

32 La. Ann. 406

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 15, 1880

DocketNo. 7796

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 La. Ann. 406 (State v. Crenshaw) 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. Crenshaw, 32 La. Ann. 406 (La. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

White, J.

The accused having been indicted for murder, tried and convicted of manslaughter, appeals. The only matters presented for our consideration are: a motion to quash and a bill of exceptions. The first was based on the theory that the indictment did not charge that the killing was done with malice aforethought. It was correctly overruled, as it was not sustained by the indictment, which in terms charged the crime to have been committed “ willfully, feloniously, and of malice [407]*407¡aforethought.” The second was taken to the overruling of the objections to the testimony of the attending physician as to the fact that death resulted from the wound inflicted by the accused. The ground of the objection as statedin the bill is, " that as the deceased was wounded on Tuesday night, and died on the next Sunday night, the opinion of ¡said witness was his mere opinion as physician.” The objection was ■correctly overruled. State vs. Bailey, 4 A. 376.

■Judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

White, J.

The accused having been indicted for murder, tried and convicted of manslaughter, appeals. The only matters presented for our consideration are: a motion to quash and a bill of exceptions. The first was based on the theory that the indictment did not charge that the killing was done with malice aforethought. It was correctly overruled, as it was not sustained by the indictment, which in terms charged the crime to have been committed “ willfully, feloniously, and of malice [407]*407¡aforethought.” The second was taken to the overruling of the objections to the testimony of the attending physician as to the fact that death resulted from the wound inflicted by the accused. The ground of the objection as statedin the bill is, " that as the deceased was wounded on Tuesday night, and died on the next Sunday night, the opinion of ¡said witness was his mere opinion as physician.” The objection was ■correctly overruled. State vs. Bailey, 4 A. 376.

■Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 La. Ann. 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-crenshaw-la-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack