State v. Redwine

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Redwine

37 La. Ann. 780

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 15, 1885

DocketNo. 164

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 La. Ann. 780 (State v. Redwine) 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. Redwine, 37 La. Ann. 780 (La. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Pochií, J.

The complaint of the defendant is that one of the jurors-who tried his case was a felon and an ex-convict, on which gro und lie-had moved for a new trial.

His counsel has omitted to incorpórate the evidence offered in support of his complaint in his bill of exceptions, and under our jurisprudence we cannot consider the same.

The rule is now well established that evidence in criminal cases taken in support of any plea or special defense will not be considered by this Court, unless incorporated in a bill of exceptions. The practical result of defendant’s omission in the jiremises is that we have no-evidence of the alleged disqualification of the juror of whom he complains. State vs. Ewen, 32 Ann. 782; State vs. Nelson, 32 Ann. 842; State vs. Miller, 36 Ann. 158. Under this showing we have no power to-entertain His point, and lienee the defendant can obtain no relief at dun-hands.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Pochií, J.

The complaint of the defendant is that one of the jurors-who tried his case was a felon and an ex-convict, on which gro und lie-had moved for a new trial.

His counsel has omitted to incorpórate the evidence offered in support of his complaint in his bill of exceptions, and under our jurisprudence we cannot consider the same.

The rule is now well established that evidence in criminal cases taken in support of any plea or special defense will not be considered by this Court, unless incorporated in a bill of exceptions. The practical result of defendant’s omission in the jiremises is that we have no-evidence of the alleged disqualification of the juror of whom he complains. State vs. Ewen, 32 Ann. 782; State vs. Nelson, 32 Ann. 842; State vs. Miller, 36 Ann. 158. Under this showing we have no power to-entertain His point, and lienee the defendant can obtain no relief at dun-hands.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 La. Ann. 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-redwine-la-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack