State v. Perisse

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Perisse

150 So. 841, 178 La. 90, 1933 La. LEXIS 1814

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 30, 1933

DocketNo. 32430.

StatusPublished

This text of 150 So. 841 (State v. Perisse) 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. Perisse, 150 So. 841, 178 La. 90, 1933 La. LEXIS 1814 (La. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

ODOM, Justice.

The defendant was indicted for manslaughter and on trial was found guilty of involuntary homicide, with recommendation for leniency. Whereupon he was sentenced to imprisonment in the Louisiana state peniten-

*91 tiary at hard labor for a term of not less than two nor more than four years. He appealed to this court.

The record discloses no bill of exception and no assignment of errors. After conviction, defendant moved, for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. Such motions present nothing for review. Citation of authority is unnecessary to support the proposition that in criminal cases, where the record discloses no bills of, exception or assignment of errors and where there is found only a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, the case presents nothing for review and the verdict of the jury and sentence imposed by the court must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

ODOM, Justice.

The defendant was indicted for manslaughter and on trial was found guilty of involuntary homicide, with recommendation for leniency. Whereupon he was sentenced to imprisonment in the Louisiana state peniten-

*91 tiary at hard labor for a term of not less than two nor more than four years. He appealed to this court.

The record discloses no bill of exception and no assignment of errors. After conviction, defendant moved, for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. Such motions present nothing for review. Citation of authority is unnecessary to support the proposition that in criminal cases, where the record discloses no bills of, exception or assignment of errors and where there is found only a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, the case presents nothing for review and the verdict of the jury and sentence imposed by the court must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 841, 178 La. 90, 1933 La. LEXIS 1814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-perisse-la-1933.