State v. O'Donald

Idaho Supreme Court

State v. O'Donald

39 P. 556, 4 Idaho 343, 1895 Ida. LEXIS 17

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 21, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 39 P. 556 (State v. O'Donald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. O'Donald, 39 P. 556, 4 Idaho 343, 1895 Ida. LEXIS 17 (Idaho 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

HUSTON, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of burglary. Appeal is taken from judgment and sentence thereon. No bill of exceptions appears in the record. In fact, there' is no record, such as is contemplated by the statute. Unless, the record show's a substantial compliance with the statutes and the rules of this court, it will not be considered. What purports to be the record is merely a copy of the information, a. copy of three affidavits by defendant, and one by his wife, in support of a motion for a continuance, the motion for a continuance, and the order of the court overruling the same, the' instructions of the court, to which no exceptions were taken,, the verdict, and judgment thereon. The action of the court in overruling the motion for a continuance was correct. The-instructions to the jury were all given by the court upon its-own motion, and no exception was taken thereto. The appeal in this case is, or at least from the record appears to be, a mera [345]*345scramble, and the most scrutinizing examination thereof fails to develop any merit whatever. The counsel who represents the defendant in this court did not, as he assures jis, have anything to do with the trial, or the preparation of the appeal, and should not, therefore, be held responsible for the condition of the record. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Morgan, C. J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

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

HUSTON, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of burglary. Appeal is taken from judgment and sentence thereon. No bill of exceptions appears in the record. In fact, there' is no record, such as is contemplated by the statute. Unless, the record show's a substantial compliance with the statutes and the rules of this court, it will not be considered. What purports to be the record is merely a copy of the information, a. copy of three affidavits by defendant, and one by his wife, in support of a motion for a continuance, the motion for a continuance, and the order of the court overruling the same, the' instructions of the court, to which no exceptions were taken,, the verdict, and judgment thereon. The action of the court in overruling the motion for a continuance was correct. The-instructions to the jury were all given by the court upon its-own motion, and no exception was taken thereto. The appeal in this case is, or at least from the record appears to be, a mera [345]*345scramble, and the most scrutinizing examination thereof fails to develop any merit whatever. The counsel who represents the defendant in this court did not, as he assures jis, have anything to do with the trial, or the preparation of the appeal, and should not, therefore, be held responsible for the condition of the record. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Morgan, C. J., and Sullivan, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 P. 556, 4 Idaho 343, 1895 Ida. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-odonald-idaho-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack