State v. Evans

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Evans

267 So. 2d 185, 263 La. 33, 1972 La. LEXIS 5384

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 4, 1972

DocketNo. 52394

StatusPublished

This text of 267 So. 2d 185 (State v. Evans) 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. Evans, 267 So. 2d 185, 263 La. 33, 1972 La. LEXIS 5384 (La. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Taylor Evans, appeals his jury conviction of attempted simple burglary, La.R.S. 14:62, La.R.S. 14:27, for which he was sentenced to serve four and a half years in the State Penitentiary at Angola. In pursuing this appeal, the defendant relies upon one Bill of’Exceptions reserved and perfected during his trial.

In his Bill of Exceptions, the defendant argues the trial judge committed error when he denied a motion for new trial, which motion alleges only “The verdict is contrary to the law and evidence.” La.C.Cr.P. Art. 851(1). Yet the defendant does not present any evidence, with any specificity, that a factual element essential to a lawful conviction is omitted from the proof. State v. Bueche, 243 La. 160, 142 So.2d 381 (1962). Neither do we find any in the record. A Bill of Exceptions taken to the overruling of a motion for new trial based upon an allegation that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence, without any direction to a specific legal error, presents nothing for review. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 858; State v. Grey, 257 La. 1070, 245 So.2d 178 (1971).

The conviction and sentence are' affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Taylor Evans, appeals his jury conviction of attempted simple burglary, La.R.S. 14:62, La.R.S. 14:27, for which he was sentenced to serve four and a half years in the State Penitentiary at Angola. In pursuing this appeal, the defendant relies upon one Bill of’Exceptions reserved and perfected during his trial.

In his Bill of Exceptions, the defendant argues the trial judge committed error when he denied a motion for new trial, which motion alleges only “The verdict is contrary to the law and evidence.” La.C.Cr.P. Art. 851(1). Yet the defendant does not present any evidence, with any specificity, that a factual element essential to a lawful conviction is omitted from the proof. State v. Bueche, 243 La. 160, 142 So.2d 381 (1962). Neither do we find any in the record. A Bill of Exceptions taken to the overruling of a motion for new trial based upon an allegation that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence, without any direction to a specific legal error, presents nothing for review. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 858; State v. Grey, 257 La. 1070, 245 So.2d 178 (1971).

The conviction and sentence are' affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 So. 2d 185, 263 La. 33, 1972 La. LEXIS 5384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-evans-la-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack