State v. Melerine

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Melerine

104 So. 308, 158 La. 511, 1925 La. LEXIS 2086

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedApril 27, 1925

DocketNo. 27112.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 104 So. 308 (State v. Melerine) 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. Melerine, 104 So. 308, 158 La. 511, 1925 La. LEXIS 2086 (La. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

O’NIELD, O. J.

Appellant was prosecuted under a bill of information charging two violations of the Prohibition Law. In the first count he was accused of having1 transported 144 bottles of whisky for beverage purposes; and in the second count he was accused of having afterwards had 144 bottles of whisky in his possession for sale, having already committed the first offense. He was convicted on both counts, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $350 for each offense, and to be imprisoned 10 days, and in default of payment of the fine, to be imprisoned 30 days longer. The terms of imprisonment were declared to be concurrent, making only one absolute sentence of 10 days, and one alternative sentence of 30 days in default of payment of the fine.

There was no bill of exception taken to any ruling of the court. The only complaint is in an assignment of error. That is with regard to the double fine. It is contended that the transporting of intoxicating liquor is only one offense, even though the party transporting the liquor has it in his possession. That might be so under some circumstances, but it was not so according to the bill of information in this ease. The coincidence that 144 bottles of whisky figured in each offense, even though it was the identical whisky in each instance, did not make the two offenses one offense. It is not impossible to commit more than one offense with one and the same quantity of intoxicating liqitor.

The verdict and sentence are affirmed.

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

O’NIELD, O. J.

Appellant was prosecuted under a bill of information charging two violations of the Prohibition Law. In the first count he was accused of having1 transported 144 bottles of whisky for beverage purposes; and in the second count he was accused of having afterwards had 144 bottles of whisky in his possession for sale, having already committed the first offense. He was convicted on both counts, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $350 for each offense, and to be imprisoned 10 days, and in default of payment of the fine, to be imprisoned 30 days longer. The terms of imprisonment were declared to be concurrent, making only one absolute sentence of 10 days, and one alternative sentence of 30 days in default of payment of the fine.

There was no bill of exception taken to any ruling of the court. The only complaint is in an assignment of error. That is with regard to the double fine. It is contended that the transporting of intoxicating liquor is only one offense, even though the party transporting the liquor has it in his possession. That might be so under some circumstances, but it was not so according to the bill of information in this ease. The coincidence that 144 bottles of whisky figured in each offense, even though it was the identical whisky in each instance, did not make the two offenses one offense. It is not impossible to commit more than one offense with one and the same quantity of intoxicating liqitor.

The verdict and sentence are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 308, 158 La. 511, 1925 La. LEXIS 2086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-melerine-la-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack