State v. McKinney

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. McKinney

113 So. 781, 164 La. 102, 1927 La. LEXIS 1737

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJuly 11, 1927

DocketNo. 28668.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 So. 781 (State v. McKinney) 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. McKinney, 113 So. 781, 164 La. 102, 1927 La. LEXIS 1737 (La. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

LAND, J.

Defendant was convicted for the sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and to serve 60 days in jail, and, in default of payment of the fine, to additional imprisonment for 6 months.

The record on appeal contains but a single bill of exception, which was reserved to the action of the trial judge in overruling a motion in arrest of judgment, alleging as its sole ground that the state had failed to prove on the trial the venue of the offense charged. In our opinion, there was no error in the ruling complained of by defendant. It is well settled that a motion in arrest of judg *103 hién't .cannot be based upon absence of evidence from the record or upon lack of proof, ■as in criminal cases the evidence forms no part of the record, and such motion must be founded upon defects patent upon the face of the record. State v. McClinton, 152 La. 632, 94 So. 141; State v. McCrocklin, 130 La. 106, 57 So. 645; State v. Shepherd, 123 La. 581, 49 So. 201; State v. Ryan, 122 La. 1095, 48 So. 537; State v. Moore, 119 La. 569, 44 So. 299.

The conviction and sentence appealed from are affirmed.

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

LAND, J.

Defendant was convicted for the sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and to serve 60 days in jail, and, in default of payment of the fine, to additional imprisonment for 6 months.

The record on appeal contains but a single bill of exception, which was reserved to the action of the trial judge in overruling a motion in arrest of judgment, alleging as its sole ground that the state had failed to prove on the trial the venue of the offense charged. In our opinion, there was no error in the ruling complained of by defendant. It is well settled that a motion in arrest of judg *103 hién't .cannot be based upon absence of evidence from the record or upon lack of proof, ■as in criminal cases the evidence forms no part of the record, and such motion must be founded upon defects patent upon the face of the record. State v. McClinton, 152 La. 632, 94 So. 141; State v. McCrocklin, 130 La. 106, 57 So. 645; State v. Shepherd, 123 La. 581, 49 So. 201; State v. Ryan, 122 La. 1095, 48 So. 537; State v. Moore, 119 La. 569, 44 So. 299.

The conviction and sentence appealed from are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 So. 781, 164 La. 102, 1927 La. LEXIS 1737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mckinney-la-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack