State v. Matassa

71 So. 190, 138 La. 1079
Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided February 21, 1916·No. No. 21776·Published

Opinion

SOMMERVILLE, J.

[1] The record contains no bill of exceptions or assignment of errors on the face of the record.

[2] There is a motion for a new trial found in the record, which is unsworn to, and which was overruled; and the minutes recite that:

“Counsel for defendant excepts and reserves a bill.”

But no bill of exceptions was filed.

“A notation by the clerk of court in a criminal case that the defendant excepted and reserved a bill cannot be considered a ‘bill of exceptions.’ ” State v. Latino, 138 La. 14, 69 South. 857; State v. Miller, 138 La. 373, 70 South. 330, and authorities therein cited.

Judgment affirmed.

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

State v. Matassa, 71 So. 190, 138 La. 1079 (La. 1916).

71 So. 190 (State v. Matassa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Latino
69 So. 857 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1915)
State v. Miller
70 So. 330 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1915)