State v. Jackson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Jackson

25 La. Ann. 537

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJuly 15, 1873

DocketNo. 378

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 25 La. Ann. 537 (State v. Jackson) 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. Jackson, 25 La. Ann. 537 (La. 1873).

Pincite

Opinion

Ludeling, C. J.

The defendant, Anderson Jackson, having been convicted and sentenced “for setting at liberty, by force and without due authority, a person in custody for an offense not capital,” has, appealed, after having unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a new trial and to arrest the judgment.

Both motions are predicated upon the hypothesis that only forty-six; jurors were drawn on the panel. This is a question of fact. No bill'' of exceptions having been taken to the ruling of the judge, this court has not the power to examine the question of fact. Art. 74 of Conati-. tution.

[538]*538'But, inasmuch as no objection was made to the jury until after conviction, the refusal of the judge a quo to grant a new trial or to arrest 'the judgment was correct, even if the facts were as supposed. One •can not take the chances of a verdict in his favor, and after conviction •object to the jury 7 An. 284; 8 An. 515.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the District Court be -affirmed, with costs of appeal.

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

Ludeling, C. J.

The defendant, Anderson Jackson, having been convicted and sentenced “for setting at liberty, by force and without due authority, a person in custody for an offense not capital,” has, appealed, after having unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a new trial and to arrest the judgment.

Both motions are predicated upon the hypothesis that only forty-six; jurors were drawn on the panel. This is a question of fact. No bill'' of exceptions having been taken to the ruling of the judge, this court has not the power to examine the question of fact. Art. 74 of Conati-. tution.

[538]*538'But, inasmuch as no objection was made to the jury until after conviction, the refusal of the judge a quo to grant a new trial or to arrest 'the judgment was correct, even if the facts were as supposed. One •can not take the chances of a verdict in his favor, and after conviction •object to the jury 7 An. 284; 8 An. 515.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the District Court be -affirmed, with costs of appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 La. Ann. 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jackson-la-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack