State v. Kline
Citation | 33 So. 618,109 La. 603 |
Decision Date | 05 January 1903 |
Docket Number | 14,525 |
Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
Parties | STATE v. KLINE et al |
Rehearing denied February 6, 1903.
Appeal from criminal district court, parish of Orleans; Frank D Chretien, Judge.
George I. Kline and Robert L. West were convicted of larceny, and appeal. Affirmed. Removed by error to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Henriques & Dunn (Henry L. Lazarus, of counsel), for appellants.
Walter Guion, Atty. Gen., J. Ward Gurley, Dist. Atty., Samuel A Montgomery, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Henry Mooney, Asst. Dist Atty. (Lewis Guion, of counsel), for the State.
Statement of the Case.
The two defendants were found guilty, and each sentenced to suffer imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of three years, and to pay the costs of prosecution. They appealed.
The information upon which they were tried charged the crime to have been committed on the 4th of January, 1902, in the parish of Orleans, and within the jurisdiction of the criminal district court for the parish of Orleans; that the property stolen belonged to Paul G. Thebaud, and when stolen they were in the parish of Orleans, and within the jurisdiction of the criminal district court.
The first bill of exception submitted to us is to the action of the court in respect to an exception which they had filed to the jurisdiction of the court. In this exception they set out that the court ought not to take cognizance of the cause, because the record and evidence taken before Thomas M. Gill, judge of the First city criminal court for the parish of Orleans, on February 19, 1902, affirmatively showed that the criminal district court had no jurisdiction over the accused, nor over the matters alleged, charged, and specified in the information, because: (1) On the examination thereof before the said First city criminal court the witness Paul G. Thebaud, being sworn on behalf of the state, did testify that the alleged larceny, as therein set forth, was committed in the state of New York, and not within the jurisdiction of the criminal district court.
(2) Because the said Paul G. Thebaud is alleged in the information to be the owner of the property alleged to have been stolen.
(3) Because, under the law, where property stolen in another state is brought to this state, if even by the thief, the crime of larceny is not committed in the state of Louisiana.
(4) Because the said Paul G. Thebaud, in his testimony before the First city criminal court, and which was on file in the criminal district court and part of case No. 31,923, then before the latter court, testified that the accused were not the persons who committed the alleged larceny, but, on the contrary, that the larceny of his goods and chattels, as charged in the information, was committed in the state of New York, and by one Edward Kern, who was then in his employ.
(5) For the further reason that if a larceny was committed in the state of New York, and stolen goods were brought into this state, the courts of Louisiana have no jurisdiction either over the person or the subject-matter of the offense; that the jurisdiction over the offense is in another tribunal, to wit, the court or courts of the state of New York.
The court made the following ruling on the exception:
It appears that later, and during the trial of the case, the testimony of Paul G. Thebaud and Edward Kern, alias Manners, which had been taken in the First city criminal court, was permitted to be read to the jury over the objections made by the defendants thereto, as shown by their bill of exception taken in relation to the same, and that, after this testimony had been read, defendants again excepted to the jurisdiction, but that, the action of the court being deemed by them prejudicial and illegal, they excepted, and filed a second bill of exception on this subject of jurisdiction. In their bill they aver that the testimony of the witness Paul G. Thebaud showed that the jewelry charged to have been stolen from him had been stolen in the city of New York, and that the perpetrator of the crime was Edward Kern, Jr., and not the defendants, and furthermore showed that the said Edward Kern, Jr., alias Manners, was in his employ at the time that he committed said offense in the state of New York; that he did not know the accused; that he had never seen them, and that the person who committed the larceny was Edward Kern, Jr.; that the larceny was committed out of the jurisdiction of the criminal district court, as was evidenced by said testimony.
The action of the court upon defendants' plea, and its reasons for the same, are set out at the foot of the bill of exception, as follows:
Counsel embodied in the bill of exception the testimony of Thebaud and Manners, taken before the First city criminal court.
The third bill of exceptions, to which we direct our attention is one in which it is recited that, a jury having been called and impaneled to try the case, the state called two...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Blackwell v. State
-
State v. Johnson, 51267
...1219 (1882); State v. Allen and Carter, 37 La.Ann. 685 (1885); State v. Madison, 50 La.Ann. 679, 23 So. 622 (1898); State v. Kline, 109 La. 603, 33 So. 618 (1903); State v. Banks, 111 La. 22, 35 So. 370 (1903); State v. Bollero, 112 La. 850, 36 So. 754 (1904); State v. Scarbrough, 167 La. 4......
-
State v. Jackson
...after a finding adverse to the accused (State v. Tanner, 38 La.Ann. 307), it could not do so upon fragmentary evidence.' State v. Kline, 109 La. 603, 33 So. 618. It may be said that, as the particular question of venue here presented concerned only the jurisdiction of the court and the plac......
-
State v. Hauser
...... from our consideration [112 La. 340] any of the evidence. taken on the trial, and deal with matters on the face of the. papers. State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185; State v. White, 37 La.Ann. 172; State v. Roland, 38. La.Ann. 18; State v. Pete, 39 La.Ann. 1095, 3 So. 284; State v. Kline, 109 La. 603, 33 So. 618. . . We must. assume that from the standpoint of mere evidence the judgment. was correct. We may say here that the only objection raised. below as to evidence was as to the correctness of the action. of the court in submitting to the jury, for the purpose ......