State v. Callahan
| Decision Date | 02 March 1903 |
| Docket Number | 14,746 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. CALLAHAN |
Appeal from Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; Robert R Reid, Judge.
J. B Callahan was indicted for selling liquor without a license and appeals. Reversed.
William H. McClendon, for appellant.
Robert S. Ellis, Dist. Atty., for the State.
The defendant was indicted for selling and retailing liquors without first having obtained a license. The court condemned him to pay a fine of $ 350 and the costs of the prosecution and, in default of the payment of the fine, to imprisonment for a period of four months.
From the sentence and judgment of the court, the defendant prosecutes this appeal.
The grounds of defendant's complaint on appeal are brought up in a motion in arrest of judgment, setting forth that section 910 of the Revised Statutes, Act No. 83 of 1886, under which the prosecution was instituted, has been repealed by Act No. 66 of 1902, and that the last statute was enacted after the crime with which he is charged, is alleged to have been committed.
The judge of the district court overruled this motion in arrest of judgment, found the accused guilty, and pronounced sentence, as before mentioned.
It is evident that the statute (Act No. 66 of 1902) not only imposes a severer penalty for an offense than was imposed by the law in force when the act is charged to have been committed, but it also imposes a different penalty.
Under Act No. 83 of 1866 the punishment was limited to the minimum of $ 100 and the maximum of $ 500, and in default of payment the convicted defendant was to be imprisoned not less than 30 days, nor more than 4 months, while under the new law the fine, as to amount, is the same, and, in default of payment of fine and costs, he "shall be imprisoned for a term within the discretion of the court." In the alternative the statute provides another and a different penalty than is set forth in Act No. 83 of 1866, as will be seen by the following, viz., "or shall suffer fine and imprisonment as the court may deem proper," which means, under Rev. St. § 982, not exceeding two years.
A change in the element of the punishment from a fine in the old law to the possibility of inflicting a fine and imprisonment in the new law repeals the old.
It may then reasonably be inferred that it was the legislative intent to repeal the old law.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dobbert v. Florida
...actually imposed, since the measure of punishment prescribed by the later statute is more severe than that of the earlier, State v. Callahan, 109 La. 946, 33 So. 931; State v. Smith, 56 Or. 21, 107 P. 980." (Emphasis Lifted from their context and read expansively, the emphasized portions of......
-
Alleyne v. United States
......2348, and preserves the jury's historic role as an intermediary between the State and criminal defendants, see United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510–511, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444. In reaching a contrary conclusion, ...Callahan, 109 La. 946, 33 So. 931 (1903) (finding ex post facto violation where a newly enacted law increased the range of punishment, even though ......
-
Alleyne v. United States
...instructed the jury to sentence the defendant between 2 to 10 years if it found a particular aggravating fact); State v. Callahan, 109 La. 946, 33 So. 931 (1903) (finding ex post facto violation where a newly enacted law increased the range of punishment, even though defendant was sentenced......
-
City of St. Louis v. Tielkemeyer
...... thereto, the statement, in order to be sufficient, must. negative the exception. Tarkio v. Loyd, 109 Mo.App. 171. (3) The State has the power, by the enactment of a. general law on any subject to repeal any provision of the. charter of the city of St. Louis, or any ordinance ...(Ala.) 506; Hoffman v. Commonwealth, 123 Pa. St. 75; Leighton v. Walker, 9 N.H. 59; Carter v. Hawley, Wright. (Oh.) 75; State v. Callahan, 109 La. 946;. Gorman v. Hammond, 28 Ga. 85. . . L. E. Walther and B. H. Charles for respondent. . . ......