State v. Hewitt
| Decision Date | 04 June 1912 |
| Docket Number | 19,434 |
| Citation | 59 So. 34,131 La. 115 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. HEWITT |
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1912.
Appeal from Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Richland John R. McIntosh, Judge.
A. L Hewitt was convicted of selling liquor without a license, and appeals. Affirmed.
Allan Sholars, for appellant.
Walter Guion, Atty. Gen., and C. J. Ellis, Dist. Atty. (G. A Gondran, of counsel), for the State.
An indictment in the usual form was found against the accused for selling liquors without a license. He called for a bill of particulars, and the district attorney, in answer to his call, filed a statement in which he declared that he was unable to name any person to whom the accused had sold intoxicating liquors, but that he expected to prove that an internal revenue license for the sale of liquors had been issued to the accused for the year 1911, and that in that year, subsequent to the issuance of said license, large quantities of liquors had been received by the accused at his store. The accused then filed a motion to quash the indictment, on the ground that, "as amended, amplified, and extended by the bill of particulars, it charges no crime." This motion was overruled, and the accused tried and convicted. He applied for a new trial, and same was refused. Both the motion to quash and the motion for new trial were founded upon the inability of the prosecution either to allege or prove that there had actually been a sale of liquors. The reason for overruling the motions was that by Act No. 40, p. 40, of 1908, the issuance of an internal revenue license for the sale of liquors is made prima facie evidence of liquors having been sold by the person to whom the license has issued. And on both motions the contention of the accused was that said statute, properly understood, does not dispense with proof of liquors having been sold -- that is to say, of an offense having been committed -- but merely dispenses with proof of the indentity of the person who sold the liquors, or to whom the liquors were sold; so that the commission of an offense, or, so to speak, the corpus delicti, having been established, the guilt is fixed prima facie upon the person to whom the license was issued.
The learned counsel for accused frankly states in this court that the sole object of this appeal is to obtain a review by this court of the ruling of the trial judge on that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Straughan
... ... Ardovino, 55 N.M. 161, 228 P.2d 947; People v. Lightstone, 330 Mich. 672, 48 N.W.2d 146; People v. Yachelson, Co.Ct., 126 N.Y.S.2d 29; and People v. Sparacino, Co.Ct., 132 N.Y.S.2d 32 ... 8 State v. Goodson, 116 La. 388, 40 So. 771; State v. Long, 129 La. 777, 56 So. 884; State v. Hewitt, 131 La. 115, 59 So. 35; State v. Bienvenn, 207 La. 859, 22 So.2d 196; State v. Varnado, 208 La. 319, 23 So.2d 106; State v. Pettifield, 210 La. 609, 27 So.2d 424; State v. Espinosa, 223 La. 520, 66 So.2d 323; and State v. Dabbs, 228 La. 960, 84 So.2d 601. See, also, State v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., ... ...
-
State v. Dreher
... ... service of amended indictment, unnecessarily, did not have ... the effect of setting aside the fixing of the case for trial ... State v. Evans, 135 La. 891, 66 So. 259; State ... v. Grimms, 143 La. 421, 78 So. 661 ... It is ... true that this court held in State v. Hewitt, 131 ... La. 115, 59 So. 34, without the citation of any authority, ... that a district attorney, [166 La. 940] though he may amend ... an information, has no power to amend an indictment ... Section 1047 of the Revised Statutes of 1870, however, is to ... the contrary, and ... ...
-
State v. Picou, 44157
...is, to say the least, conflicting. See 32 Tulane Law Review 60--62. In State v. Long, 129 La. 777, 56 So. 884, and in State v. Hewitt, 131 La. 115, 59 So. 34, the principle was established that a bill of particulars does not become a part of the indictment, does not amend it, and cannot hav......
-
State v. Bienvenu
...more specifically of the facts upon which the prosecution is based.' The ruling in State v. Long was cited with approval in State v. Hewitt, 131 La. 115, 59 So. 34. It is that in State v. Hewitt an indictment and not an information was involved and that the Court in its opinion stated the d......