State v. McCauley

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. McCauley

144 So. 243, 175 La. 677, 1932 La. LEXIS 1884

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 31, 1932

DocketNo. 31983.

StatusPublished

This text of 144 So. 243 (State v. McCauley) 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. McCauley, 144 So. 243, 175 La. 677, 1932 La. LEXIS 1884 (La. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

O’NIELL, C. J.

The appellant was convicted of breaking and entering a store, in the nighttime, with intent to commit larceny. The only bill of exceptions in the record has reference to a statement made by the district attorney to the defendant, on cross-examination, viz. : “Now you know that you had stopped off in Shreveport on your way to pull a job of robbery at McComb City, Miss.” The objection made to the statement was that there was no evidence of any such fact, and that the statement of the supposed fact was prejudicial to the defendant. The judge sustained the objection and immediately instructed the jury to disregard the statement of the district attorney, and to draw no inference from it prejudicial to the defendant. We; have no reason to doubt that the judge’s prompt admonition to the jury served its purpose, or that the defendant was not prejudiced by the district attorney’s statement.

The verdict and sentence are affirmed.

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

O’NIELL, C. J.

The appellant was convicted of breaking and entering a store, in the nighttime, with intent to commit larceny. The only bill of exceptions in the record has reference to a statement made by the district attorney to the defendant, on cross-examination, viz. : “Now you know that you had stopped off in Shreveport on your way to pull a job of robbery at McComb City, Miss.” The objection made to the statement was that there was no evidence of any such fact, and that the statement of the supposed fact was prejudicial to the defendant. The judge sustained the objection and immediately instructed the jury to disregard the statement of the district attorney, and to draw no inference from it prejudicial to the defendant. We; have no reason to doubt that the judge’s prompt admonition to the jury served its purpose, or that the defendant was not prejudiced by the district attorney’s statement.

The verdict and sentence are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 So. 243, 175 La. 677, 1932 La. LEXIS 1884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mccauley-la-1932.