State v. Jones

• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: THOMPSON, J.
• Citation: State v. Jones, 160 La. 209, 106 So. 830 (La. 1926)
• Decision Date: 04 January 1926
• Docket Number: 27634
• Parties: STATE v. JONES

106 So. 830

160 La. 209

STATE v. JONES

No. 27634

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 4, 1926

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Bossier; E. P Mills, Judge.

J. J Jones was convicted and sentenced for selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.

Sentence set aside and case remanded, with directions.

Crow &amp Coleman, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Percy Saint, Atty Gen., L. C. Blanchard, Dist. Atty., of Shreveport, L. B. Duke, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Benton, and Aubrey M. Pyburn, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Shreveport, for the State.

OPINION

THOMPSON, J.

The defendant, charged with selling intoxicating liquor, when called for arraignment failed to answer and his bond was forfeited. This was on October the 7th.

Six days later he appeared and personally waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty. The case was then by consent assigned for trial on October 20th.

When called for trial on the day fixed, the defendant requested permission to withdraw his plea in order to file a motion for a bill of particulars and a motion to quash the information. The request was denied by the court.

A motion for a bill of particulars and to quash, however, were filed and overruled by the court.

We see no error in the ruling of the court. The information was filed on October 1st, but the accused was not called for arraignment until October 7th. The case was fixed by consent or at least without objection for October 20th. Ample time therefore intervened between the time of defendant's arrest and the date of arraignment for the defendant to have prepared and filed all preliminary motions which he might have desired to present to the court. At all events the matter of withdrawal of the plea was within the discretion of the court, and we find no abuse in the exercise of that discretion.

The motion for bill of particulars and the motion to quash are without any merit. The information does charge a crime known to the laws of the state, to wit, the sale of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. The information follows substantially the words of the statute. The date of the offense was stated and the kind of liquor sold was designated. The state was not required to state the quantity sold, nor to disclose the name of the party to whom sold.

We can discover no sufficient reason for setting aside the conviction of the accused.

A more serious question is presented, however, in the action of the court in passing sentence immediately after conviction over objection of the accused and without giving him an opportunity to file a motion for a new trial and a motion in arrest.

It appears that when the court adjudged the defendant guilty after hearing the evidence and argument of counsel, the defendant's attorney asked the court to postpone the sentence and to grant him a reasonable time within which to prepare and file a ...