State v. Mitchell

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Mitchell

92 So. 50, 151 La. 540, 1922 La. LEXIS 2740

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 1, 1922

DocketNo. 25174

StatusPublished

This text of 92 So. 50 (State v. Mitchell) 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. Mitchell, 92 So. 50, 151 La. 540, 1922 La. LEXIS 2740 (La. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

The defendant, Ezra Mitchell, was tried for shooting one Willie Robertson with intent to kill and murder him, and was convicted of shooting with intent to kill. From a sentence and judgment which condemned him to serve from 12 to 16 months in the state penitentiary, the defendant brings up this appeal.

1.The sole bill of exception relied on is to the overruling by the trial judge of a motion - in arrest of judgment. The motion is leveled at the sufficiency of the information, in that it fails to allege that the shooting was done with “malice aforethought.” A similar motion in arrest of judgment was made in the case of State v. Wear Martin (No. 25175) 92 South. 334,¹ this day decided adversely to the contention of counsel in the present case. The words “malice aforethought” are not sacramental in an indictment for shooting with intent to kill and murder. It is sufficient under the statute denouncing that crime to charge that the shooting was done “willfully, maliciously, feloniously, and unlawfully,” the language used in the information under which the defendant was tried and convicted. State v. Hopkins, 115 La. 786, 40 South. 166.

It is therefore ordered and decreed that the conviction, sentence, and judgment thereon are affirmed.

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

THOMPSON, J.

The defendant, Ezra Mitchell, was tried for shooting one Willie Robertson with intent to kill and murder him, and was convicted of shooting with intent to kill. From a sentence and judgment which condemned him to serve from 12 to 16 months in the state penitentiary, the defendant brings up this appeal.

1.The sole bill of exception relied on is to the overruling by the trial judge of a motion - in arrest of judgment. The motion is leveled at the sufficiency of the information, in that it fails to allege that the shooting was done with “malice aforethought.” A similar motion in arrest of judgment was made in the case of State v. Wear Martin (No. 25175) 92 South. 334,¹ this day decided adversely to the contention of counsel in the present case. The words “malice aforethought” are not sacramental in an indictment for shooting with intent to kill and murder. It is sufficient under the statute denouncing that crime to charge that the shooting was done “willfully, maliciously, feloniously, and unlawfully,” the language used in the information under which the defendant was tried and convicted. State v. Hopkins, 115 La. 786, 40 South. 166.

It is therefore ordered and decreed that the conviction, sentence, and judgment thereon are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 So. 50, 151 La. 540, 1922 La. LEXIS 2740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mitchell-la-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack