State v. Duplechain
This text of 67 So. 175 (State v. Duplechain) 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.
Opinion
It appears from the record that Duple-chain, Davide, and Ryder moved for a severance from Paul Bellou, on the following grounds: That they had been credibly informed that their said codefendant had made a confession of guilt, which would implicate them in the commission of the offense charged in the information; and that their defense was that the said Bellou was the thief, if the cow had been stolen as charged.
It appears from the per curiam of the court that “no confession was offered”; that Bellou testified that he had bought the meat stolen from Duplechain and Ryder, when asked where he had gotten the stolen meat; that the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony in so far as Duplechain and Ryder were concerned; that Duplechain and Ryder said they had bought the meat from Bellou; and that the evidence convinced the court [391]*391they all had stolen the cow and sought to escape by blaming one another.
As no confession was offered, the appellants were not prejudiced by the overruling of their motion for a severance.
“The mere fact that one defendant is seeking to escape by throwing the blame upon the other is not sufficient to require a severance.” Id.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
67 So. 175, 136 La. 389, 1915 La. LEXIS 1692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-duplechain-la-1915.