State v. Deon

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Deon

101 So. 266, 156 La. 919, 1924 La. LEXIS 2122

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 28, 1924

DocketNo. 26651

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 101 So. 266 (State v. Deon) 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. Deon, 101 So. 266, 156 La. 919, 1924 La. LEXIS 2122 (La. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

By the WHOLE COURT.

O’NIELL, C. J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of resisting an officer serving a warrant of arrest. There was no exception taken to ahy of the proceedings or rulings until the verdict was rendered. Then defendant’s counsel filed a motion in arrest of judgment, which motion was regularly heard and overruled. Defendant’s attorney stated that he excepted' to the ruling, but there is no bill of exceptions in the record. Nor is there any error apparent on the face of the record. The substance of the complaint in the motion in arrest of judgment was that the indictment did not explain how or in what way the defendant had resisted the officer. A motion for a bill of particulars might have brought forth whatever further information the defendant needed to prepare his defense; but the motion in arrest of judgment was not availing because the indictment did charge the commission of the crime substantially in the language of the statute.

The verdict and sentence are affirmed.

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

By the WHOLE COURT.

O’NIELL, C. J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of resisting an officer serving a warrant of arrest. There was no exception taken to ahy of the proceedings or rulings until the verdict was rendered. Then defendant’s counsel filed a motion in arrest of judgment, which motion was regularly heard and overruled. Defendant’s attorney stated that he excepted' to the ruling, but there is no bill of exceptions in the record. Nor is there any error apparent on the face of the record. The substance of the complaint in the motion in arrest of judgment was that the indictment did not explain how or in what way the defendant had resisted the officer. A motion for a bill of particulars might have brought forth whatever further information the defendant needed to prepare his defense; but the motion in arrest of judgment was not availing because the indictment did charge the commission of the crime substantially in the language of the statute.

The verdict and sentence are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 So. 266, 156 La. 919, 1924 La. LEXIS 2122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-deon-la-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack