State v. Sullivan

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Sullivan

333 So. 2d 638, 1976 La. LEXIS 4845

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 4, 1976

DocketNo. 57460

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 333 So. 2d 638 (State v. Sullivan) 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. Sullivan, 333 So. 2d 638, 1976 La. LEXIS 4845 (La. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted of armed robbery, La.R.S. 14:64, and sentenced to thirty-five years at hard labor.

He urges four assignments of error upon his appeal:

Assignment 1 relates to a denial of a motion for a new trial. The principal ground urged concerned an alleged conversation among the jurors after they had retired for their deliberations. The trial court properly held that testimony of the jurors as to the matter was inadmissible to impeach the verdict. La.R.S. 15:470; State v. Ledet, 298 So.2d 761 (La.1974).

[639]*639Assignment 2 relates to the denial of a motion to quash the indictment because of the alleged denial of a speedy trial. No prejudice is shown as to the defendant resulting from the failure for explained reason to try the defendant until February 13, 1975, a little more than four months after the information was filed on October 2 (amended October 16), 1974. See trial court’s reasons, pp. 6-13 trial transcript. The defendant was not denied a speedy trial. See State v. Moore, 300 So.2d 492 (La.1974).

Assignment 3 relates to the admission of alleged hearsay. The trial court correctly overruled the defendant’s objection. See La.R.S. 15:496, 497.

Assignment 4 relates to the denial of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. The motion was correctly denied, there being some evidence that the defendant committed the crime charged and proving every essential element of it.

Decree

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted of armed robbery, La.R.S. 14:64, and sentenced to thirty-five years at hard labor.

He urges four assignments of error upon his appeal:

Assignment 1 relates to a denial of a motion for a new trial. The principal ground urged concerned an alleged conversation among the jurors after they had retired for their deliberations. The trial court properly held that testimony of the jurors as to the matter was inadmissible to impeach the verdict. La.R.S. 15:470; State v. Ledet, 298 So.2d 761 (La.1974).

[639]*639Assignment 2 relates to the denial of a motion to quash the indictment because of the alleged denial of a speedy trial. No prejudice is shown as to the defendant resulting from the failure for explained reason to try the defendant until February 13, 1975, a little more than four months after the information was filed on October 2 (amended October 16), 1974. See trial court’s reasons, pp. 6-13 trial transcript. The defendant was not denied a speedy trial. See State v. Moore, 300 So.2d 492 (La.1974).

Assignment 3 relates to the admission of alleged hearsay. The trial court correctly overruled the defendant’s objection. See La.R.S. 15:496, 497.

Assignment 4 relates to the denial of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. The motion was correctly denied, there being some evidence that the defendant committed the crime charged and proving every essential element of it.

Decree

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 So. 2d 638, 1976 La. LEXIS 4845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sullivan-la-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack