State v. Mims

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Mims

95 So. 264, 153 La. 9, 1922 La. LEXIS 2505

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedDecember 29, 1922

DocketNo. 25520

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 95 So. 264 (State v. Mims) 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. Mims, 95 So. 264, 153 La. 9, 1922 La. LEXIS 2505 (La. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

By the WHOLE COURT.

ST. PAUL, J.

Defendant was convicted of unlawfully manufacturing whisky for sale for beverage purposes, and was fined $500 and 60 days in jail, and 12 months additional if the fine be not paid. He appeals to this court.

The record contains but one bill of exception, to wit, to a refusal of the district judge to exclude certain evidence obtained by search and seizure made without a search warrant.

The bill is without merit. In Shreveport v. Marx, 148 La. 31, 86 South. 602, and again in State v. Fleckinger, 152 La. 337, 93 South. 115, this court held that evidence otherwise admissible in a criminal case, should not be excluded even though obtained by search and seizure without a search warrant.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed. 1

O’NIELL, J., concurs in the decree, but does not approve the doctrine of State v. Fleckinger.

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