State v. Osborne

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Osborne

94 So. 440, 152 La. 909, 1922 La. LEXIS 2458

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 27, 1922

DocketNo. 25435

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 So. 440 (State v. Osborne) 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. Osborne, 94 So. 440, 152 La. 909, 1922 La. LEXIS 2458 (La. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

PROVOSTY, C. J.

Accused appeals from his conviction on the charge of manufacturing whisky for beverage purposes.

[1] The date in the information being January 3, 1922, the first witness for the state was asked whether he had not searched the premises of accused on that date. He answered that he had not on that date, but had on December 26, 1921. This discrepancy in date led to objection and to argument, whereupon the accused was allowed to call for a bill of particulars, and the district attorney, in answer to this call, fixed the date as of December 26th; and on motion of accused the case was reassigned for a future day. When the case was again taken up for trial, accused filed a plea of once in jeopardy, based upon the previous attempt at a trial. - The reassignment of the case having been on his motion, he is without standing to urge the plea.

[2] The search of his premises having been made without a warrant, he objected to testimony as to the evidences of the crime which were found on the premises.

The objection was properly overruled. State v. Fleckinger, 152 La. 337, 93 South. 115.

Judgment affirmed.

O’NIELL, J.,' being absent from the state, takes no part in the decision of this case.

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

PROVOSTY, C. J.

Accused appeals from his conviction on the charge of manufacturing whisky for beverage purposes.

[1] The date in the information being January 3, 1922, the first witness for the state was asked whether he had not searched the premises of accused on that date. He answered that he had not on that date, but had on December 26, 1921. This discrepancy in date led to objection and to argument, whereupon the accused was allowed to call for a bill of particulars, and the district attorney, in answer to this call, fixed the date as of December 26th; and on motion of accused the case was reassigned for a future day. When the case was again taken up for trial, accused filed a plea of once in jeopardy, based upon the previous attempt at a trial. - The reassignment of the case having been on his motion, he is without standing to urge the plea.

[2] The search of his premises having been made without a warrant, he objected to testimony as to the evidences of the crime which were found on the premises.

The objection was properly overruled. State v. Fleckinger, 152 La. 337, 93 South. 115.

Judgment affirmed.

O’NIELL, J.,' being absent from the state, takes no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 So. 440, 152 La. 909, 1922 La. LEXIS 2458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-osborne-la-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack