State v. Hamm

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Hamm

38 So. 2d 394, 214 La. 709, 1948 La. LEXIS 1010

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedDecember 13, 1948

DocketNo. 39080.

StatusPublished

This text of 38 So. 2d 394 (State v. Hamm) 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. Hamm, 38 So. 2d 394, 214 La. 709, 1948 La. LEXIS 1010 (La. 1948).

Pincite

Opinions

MOISE, Justice.

The defendants herein were charged with having committed “the crime of gambling”, which is defined by Article 90 of the Louisiana Criminal Code. From the judgment of their conviction and respective sentences, they have appealed.

The defendants urge in particular' one bill of exception. This bill, even if it had merit, is of no value, because the defendants, having failed to file a motion for a new trial and to exhaust their remedies in the district court by submitting for review the rulings there made and complainéd of, before appealing to this Court, have not in conformity with the law placed themselves in a position to obtain relief. Article 559, Code of Criminal Procedure; State v. Stinson, 174 La. 510, 141 So. 44; State v. Eubanks, 179 La. 92, 153 So. 31; State v. Stephens, 183 La. 431, 164 So. 162 and State v. White, 195 La. 1028, 197 So. 745.

For the reasons assigned, the convictions and sentences are affirmed.

O’NIELL C. J., concurs in the decree and assigns reasons.

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

MOISE, Justice.

The defendants herein were charged with having committed “the crime of gambling”, which is defined by Article 90 of the Louisiana Criminal Code. From the judgment of their conviction and respective sentences, they have appealed.

The defendants urge in particular' one bill of exception. This bill, even if it had merit, is of no value, because the defendants, having failed to file a motion for a new trial and to exhaust their remedies in the district court by submitting for review the rulings there made and complainéd of, before appealing to this Court, have not in conformity with the law placed themselves in a position to obtain relief. Article 559, Code of Criminal Procedure; State v. Stinson, 174 La. 510, 141 So. 44; State v. Eubanks, 179 La. 92, 153 So. 31; State v. Stephens, 183 La. 431, 164 So. 162 and State v. White, 195 La. 1028, 197 So. 745.

For the reasons assigned, the convictions and sentences are affirmed.

O’NIELL C. J., concurs in the decree and assigns reasons.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 So. 2d 394, 214 La. 709, 1948 La. LEXIS 1010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hamm-la-1948.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack