State v. Duplechain

67 So. 175, 136 La. 389, 1915 La. LEXIS 1692
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedJanuary 11, 1915
DocketNo. 20986
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

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.

Bluebook
State v. Duplechain, 67 So. 175, 136 La. 389, 1915 La. LEXIS 1692 (La. 1915).

Opinion

LAND, J.

[1] The four defendants were charged on information with 'the offense of stealing a certain cow. Three of the defendants were found guilty as charged, and the fourth was acquitted. Duplechain and Ryder have appealed. ■ ■

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.

[2, 3] Bellou, though being “jointly tried,” was in no wise disqualified from testifying. Section 2, Act No. 185 of 1902, p. 355. See State v. Johnson, 116 La. 865, 41 South. 119.

“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

State v. Lavigne
412 So. 2d 993 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1982)
State v. McGraw
366 So. 2d 1278 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1979)
State v. Thibodeaux
315 So. 2d 769 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1975)
State v. Livsey
182 So. 576 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1938)
State v. Goury
168 So. 113 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1936)
State v. Birbiglia
88 So. 533 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 So. 175, 136 La. 389, 1915 La. LEXIS 1692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-duplechain-la-1915.