State v. Stewart

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Stewart

177 So. 662, 188 La. 546, 1937 La. LEXIS 1291

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedNovember 2, 1937

DocketNo. 34539.

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 177 So. 662 (State v. Stewart) 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. Stewart, 177 So. 662, 188 La. 546, 1937 La. LEXIS 1291 (La. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

LAND, Justice.

The defendant, Alex. Stewart, was jointly indicted with two other defendants for the burglary of an outhouse or “smokehouse,” in the nighttime. All of the defendants were jointly tried by jury, and convicted, and each was sentenced to serve a term of not less than one year nor more than three years in the State Penitentiary.

The defendant, Alex. Stewart, has appealed, and relies for the reversal of the judgment of the lower court upon a single bill of exceptions, reserved to the overruling by the trial judge of a motion for a new trial.

This motion in based upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, since' there was no competent legal evidence upon which to base the verdict, as the evidence upon which defendant was convicted was mere hearsay testimony.

No testimony was taken down by the clerk of the lower court on the trial of the motion for a new trial. Consequently, there is nothing before this court to act upon, except the allegations set forth in the ex parte affidavit of defendant for a new trial that he was convicted upon mere hearsay evidence. It is elementary, that this is not sufficient. The only known way by which evidence can be brought before the Supreme Court is by annexing' and making same a part of a bill of exceptions, timely reserved. Objection to the admission or rejection of evidence should be made at the time at which the evidence is offered, and, if the objection is not sustained, a formal bill of exceptions setting forth the objection and the ruling should be taken at the time at which such ruling is made, otherwise the objection cannot be raised after verdict, and presents no question for the review of the Supreme Court. Marr’s Crim.Juris. (1906 Ed.) § 419, p. 704, citing numerous authorities.

The trial judge states in the per curiam to the bill reserved'to the overruling of the motion for new trial: “Only the State offered testimony and no objection was *549 made to the State’s testimony. The jury rendered the proper verdict under the law and the evidence.”

The conviction and sentence appealed from are affirmed.

HIGGINS, J., takes no part.

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

LAND, Justice.

The defendant, Alex. Stewart, was jointly indicted with two other defendants for the burglary of an outhouse or “smokehouse,” in the nighttime. All of the defendants were jointly tried by jury, and convicted, and each was sentenced to serve a term of not less than one year nor more than three years in the State Penitentiary.

The defendant, Alex. Stewart, has appealed, and relies for the reversal of the judgment of the lower court upon a single bill of exceptions, reserved to the overruling by the trial judge of a motion for a new trial.

This motion in based upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, since' there was no competent legal evidence upon which to base the verdict, as the evidence upon which defendant was convicted was mere hearsay testimony.

No testimony was taken down by the clerk of the lower court on the trial of the motion for a new trial. Consequently, there is nothing before this court to act upon, except the allegations set forth in the ex parte affidavit of defendant for a new trial that he was convicted upon mere hearsay evidence. It is elementary, that this is not sufficient. The only known way by which evidence can be brought before the Supreme Court is by annexing' and making same a part of a bill of exceptions, timely reserved. Objection to the admission or rejection of evidence should be made at the time at which the evidence is offered, and, if the objection is not sustained, a formal bill of exceptions setting forth the objection and the ruling should be taken at the time at which such ruling is made, otherwise the objection cannot be raised after verdict, and presents no question for the review of the Supreme Court. Marr’s Crim.Juris. (1906 Ed.) § 419, p. 704, citing numerous authorities.

The trial judge states in the per curiam to the bill reserved'to the overruling of the motion for new trial: “Only the State offered testimony and no objection was *549 made to the State’s testimony. The jury rendered the proper verdict under the law and the evidence.”

The conviction and sentence appealed from are affirmed.

HIGGINS, J., takes no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 So. 662, 188 La. 546, 1937 La. LEXIS 1291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stewart-la-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack