State v. Martin

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Martin

98 So. 83, 154 La. 675, 1923 La. LEXIS 2003

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 29, 1923

DocketNo. 26081

StatusPublished

This text of 98 So. 83 (State v. Martin) 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. Martin, 98 So. 83, 154 La. 675, 1923 La. LEXIS 2003 (La. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

LECHE, J.

Defendant was indicted for “unlawfully failing to keep his office of registrar of voters open during the period prescribed by law.” When called up for arraignment, he moved for the recusation of the presiding judge. That motion was referred for trial and hearing to the judge of an adjoining judicial district. By consent of the district attorney and of the attorneys for defendant, the judge who tried the motion was permitted to render and sign a judgment in chambers and to append thereto a written order of appeal in favor of the party cast, as is often done in civil matters.

It is by virtue of such an order that the present appeal from the ruling of the judge, who denied the motion to recuse, was brought to this court by defendant.

An appeal in a criminal case only lies after judgment finally disposing of the case. State v. Carter, 120 La. 96, 44 South. 997; State v. Hart, 48 La. Ann. 1008, 20 South. 186; State v. Jackson, 140 La. 680, 73 South. 770; State v. Sherman, 144 La. 76, 80 South. 205.

The appeal in this case is therefore dismissed.

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

LECHE, J.

Defendant was indicted for “unlawfully failing to keep his office of registrar of voters open during the period prescribed by law.” When called up for arraignment, he moved for the recusation of the presiding judge. That motion was referred for trial and hearing to the judge of an adjoining judicial district. By consent of the district attorney and of the attorneys for defendant, the judge who tried the motion was permitted to render and sign a judgment in chambers and to append thereto a written order of appeal in favor of the party cast, as is often done in civil matters.

It is by virtue of such an order that the present appeal from the ruling of the judge, who denied the motion to recuse, was brought to this court by defendant.

An appeal in a criminal case only lies after judgment finally disposing of the case. State v. Carter, 120 La. 96, 44 South. 997; State v. Hart, 48 La. Ann. 1008, 20 South. 186; State v. Jackson, 140 La. 680, 73 South. 770; State v. Sherman, 144 La. 76, 80 South. 205.

The appeal in this case is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 So. 83, 154 La. 675, 1923 La. LEXIS 2003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-martin-la-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack