State v. Dark
| Decision Date | 01 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | 35664,35663,35666. |
| Citation | 195 La. 160,196 So. 54 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. DARK et al. |
Rehearing Denied April 29, 1940.
Appeals from Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Ouachita; J T. Shell, Judge.
W. D Dark and L. J. Melton were indicted for accepting bribes, and from judgments sustaining their demurrers to and motions to quash the indictment, the State appeals.
Judgments annulled and set aside, demurrers and motions overruled, and case remanded.
An indictment in language of statute for receiving stated sums of money as bribes to induce and influence defendants as state officers to exercise powers and perform duties with partiality or favor in issuance of order or permit to acidize gas wells were not bad on demurrers or motions to quash for uncertainty and generality, as defendant's rights could be adequately protected through bill of particulars. Act No 78 of 1890, s 1; Code Cr.Proc. arts. 227, 235, 252, 253, 288.
Lessley P. Gardiner, Atty. Gen., Edward M. Heath Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank W. Hawthorne, Dist. Atty., and Geo. W. Lester, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Monroe, and James O'Connor, Second Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Thompson & Thompson, of Monroe, for defendants-appellees.
The accused, L. J. McIton and W. D. Dark, are charged in three indictments returned by the Ouachita Parish Grand Jury with accepting three distinct bribes of $2,250, $750 and $200, respectively, in violation of the provisions of Section 1 of Act 78 of 1890. The pertinent part of one of the indictments, which is common to all of the issues raised in the three cases, reads as follows: ‘ * * * did then and there wilfully and feloniously, being then and there State Officers, and as such State Officers, did then and there feloniously receive from one George D. Pipes, a sum of money, to-wit: Seven Hundred Fifty and no/100 Dollars ($750.00), lawful money of the United States of America, as a bribe, present or reward for the purpose of inducing and influencing them, the said W. D. Dark and L. J. Melton, as such State Officers, to exercise a power in them vested and to perform a duty of them required with partiality and favor, in the issuance of an order or permit to acidize four (4) gas wells, designated as Peek Numbers One (1), Two (2), Three (3) and Four (4).’
The defendants filed demurrers and moved to quash the indictments on the grounds that they do not charge any offense under the laws of this State and do not inform the accused of the offense or charge they are called upon to answer. The accused also demurred to and moved to quash the indictments on the grounds (1) that the provisions of Act 78 of 1890, under which they are charged, are no longer in force but have been repealed and superseded by Section 12 of Article 19 of the Constitution of Louisiana of 1921, which specifically defines the crime of bribery and prohibits the Legislature from changing, amending or modifying the law of bribery, limiting its power solely and only to making additional penalties; (2) that the indictments do not allege what State offices defendants held at the time the offenses are said to have been committed nor any facts upon which could be based the allegations that the defendants were State officers; (3) that the general characterization of the defendants as State officers was the statement of a legal opinion or conclusion; (4) that the declaration in the indictments that the defendants received a sum of money for the purpose of influencing them as State officers ‘ to exercise a power in them vested and to perform a duty of them required with partiality and favor, in the issuance of an order or permit to acidize four (4) gas wells, * * *’ without alleging what power was vested in them which they were called upon to exercise, how such power was exercised, what duty or duties they were required to perform, in what manner they exercised such vested power and required duty with partiality and favor, and without alleging the authority, statutory or otherwise, by which such power was conferred and duty required, and what constitutes the acidizing of a gas well, is a mere conclusion of law and charges no crime known to the laws of Louisiana.
The defendants further moved to quash on the additional ground that, if the indictments were not faulty in the respects particularized, they were without legal effect, because no law in Louisiana confers upon any State officer the power to issue or withhold from issuance a permit for the acidizing of a gas well, and since there is no law requiring State officers to perform any duty in connection with the issuance of a permit for the acidizing of a gas well, the indictments charged no penal offense.
The demurrers and motions to quash were sustained and the State appealed.
The defendants' contention that Act 78 of 1890 has been repealed and superseded by Section 12 of Article 19 of the Constitution of 1921 is without merit.
In the case of State v. McGraw, 142 La 417, 76 So. 822, this Court held that the provisions of the above statute were not repealed and superseded by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Varnado
...for want of such additional information. It was so held very recently in State v. Dark, 195 La. 139, 196 So. 47, and in State v. Dark, 195 La. 160, 196 So. 54. In the of State v. Pete, 206 La. 1078, 20 So.2d 368, 369, it was held that a bill of information which charged merely that the defe......