State v. Stelly

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Stelly

52 So. 864, 126 La. 659, 1910 La. LEXIS 712

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 20, 1910

DocketNo. 18,313

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 52 So. 864 (State v. Stelly) 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. Stelly, 52 So. 864, 126 La. 659, 1910 La. LEXIS 712 (La. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PROVOSTY, J.

The defendant moved to quash the indictment against him for obtaining money under false pretenses, on the ground that the offense was barred by prescription. The indictment negatived the prescription by an allegation that the fact of the offense having been committed had been “made known to a public officer having the power to direct a public prosecution” only within the prescriptive period. On the trial ■of the motion to quash, evidence was taken, and it showed that the victim of the offense was a deputy sheriff, but that only within the prescriptive period he had learned that the pretense on which the money had been obtained from him was false. The court quashed the indictment, and the state has appealed.

This court, being limited in its jurisdiction to questions of law, cannot consider the question of fact as to when the deputy sheriff became informed of the falsity of the pretenses.

The question of whether a deputy sheriff is an officer “having the power to direct a public prosecution” is submitted without argument. We have no hesitation in saying that he is; for one of the prescribed duties of the sheriff is “to preserve the peace and apprehend all disturbers thereof, and other public offenders” (Rev. St. § 3541), and the deputy is his alter ego.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PROVOSTY, J.

The defendant moved to quash the indictment against him for obtaining money under false pretenses, on the ground that the offense was barred by prescription. The indictment negatived the prescription by an allegation that the fact of the offense having been committed had been “made known to a public officer having the power to direct a public prosecution” only within the prescriptive period. On the trial ■of the motion to quash, evidence was taken, and it showed that the victim of the offense was a deputy sheriff, but that only within the prescriptive period he had learned that the pretense on which the money had been obtained from him was false. The court quashed the indictment, and the state has appealed.

This court, being limited in its jurisdiction to questions of law, cannot consider the question of fact as to when the deputy sheriff became informed of the falsity of the pretenses.

The question of whether a deputy sheriff is an officer “having the power to direct a public prosecution” is submitted without argument. We have no hesitation in saying that he is; for one of the prescribed duties of the sheriff is “to preserve the peace and apprehend all disturbers thereof, and other public offenders” (Rev. St. § 3541), and the deputy is his alter ego.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 So. 864, 126 La. 659, 1910 La. LEXIS 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stelly-la-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack