State v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 27 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 25285 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ROBERTS |
Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Bossier; J. E Reynolds, Judge.
Minor Roberts was convicted of possessing and transporting liquor and he appeals.
Conviction set aside, informations quashed, and the accused discharged.
Scheen & Blanchard, of Shreveport, for appellant.
A. V Coco, Atty. Gen., and R. Harwell Lee, Dist. Atty., of Minden (T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
Defendant was charged in the district court of Bossier parish, by separate informations, with (1) unlawfully having in his possession, for sale, certain intoxicating liquors, to wit, 4 bottles of gin and 200 bottles of wine, and (2) unlawfully transporting certain intoxicating liquor, to wit, 4 bottles of gin and 200 bottles of wine. The two charges were consolidated for trial, and on the trial defendant was convicted and sentenced in each case to pay a fine of $ 301 and costs. He prosecutes this appeal.
Before the trial the defendant filed a plea of autre fois convict, in which it was alleged that he had been tried, convicted, and sentenced in the parish of Red River on the same evidence and for the same offense as that with which he was charged in the parish of Bossier. The plea was overruled by the court and to this ruling an exception was reserved. After the evidence was introduced and before conviction, the defendant asked the court to charge: (1) That a defendant cannot be tried in different parishes of the state of Louisiana for the same offense. (2) That a prior conviction in one parish of the state is a bar to a prosecution in another parish for the same offense. (3) That the defendant is here charged with a violation of Act 39 of 1921; that he was transporting intoxicating liquor from the parish of Red River, and while so doing the sheriff of said parish attempted to arrest him in the parish of Red River, and that the defendant resisted and ran and was pursued into the parish of Bossier by the sheriff of Red River, and while thus resisting arrest was taken into custody by the sheriff of Bossier parish and thereafter tried and convicted in Red River parish for said offense; that said offense was a continuous offense, one and the same offense, and defendant, having been tried and convicted, is now in jeopardy. The court granted the first and second but refused the third charge. The ruling refusing the third charge forms the basis of the second bill of exception. The agreed statement of facts brought up with the bills of exception shows that the defendant had in his possession and was transporting in Red River parish the liquor described in the information in the present case. The officers of that parish "went after him," when he fled into Bossier parish, being closely followed by the officers of Red River. When defendant got across the line into Bossier, he "ran into," and was arrested by, the officers of the last-named parish. The gin and wine defendant had in his possession when arrested in Bossier was the identical gin and wine he carried out of Red River. The act of fleeing from Red River and defendant's arrest in Bossier occurred on the same day. It is admitted that defendant was tried and convicted and sentenced in Red River for having in his possession and transporting the same liquor for which he has been convicted and sentenced in these two cases.
The district judge assigns as a reason for overruling the plea of former jeopardy:
The ruling assumes that there were two separate and distinct offenses, one in Red River and the other in Bossier, and that defendant was amenable to prosecution in each parish. If the premise was correct, the ruling was proper, for nothing is clearer than that a prosecution could not be had in Red River parish for an offense committed in Bossier parish, unless there was a change of venue. It is of constitutional requirement that every person shall be tried in the parish in which the offense charged against him was committed, save where the venue has been changed on motion of the state or of the accused. There was manifest error however, in holding that the possession and transportation of the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Andrus
......791] legal conviction on the first. State v. Keogh, 13 La.Ann. 243; State v. Vines, 34 La.Ann. 1079; State v. Williams, 45 La.Ann. 936, 12 So. 932; State v. Terry, 128 La. 680, 55 So. 15; State v. Roberts, 152 La. 283, 93 So. 95, 24 A.L.R. 1122; State v. Foster, 156 La. 891, 101 So. 255. . The trial court correctly maintained the indictment. . BILL OF PARTICULARS . Prior to trial the defendants through counsel filed a motion for a bill of particulars seeking the ......
-
State ex rel. Wikberg v. Henderson, 53377
...... That test holds that offenses are 'the same' if the elements required to support a conviction upon one of the offenses would have been sufficient to warrant a conviction upon another. 4 See State v. Roberts, 152 La. 283, 93 So. 95 (1922); State v. Foster, 156 La. 891, 101 So. 255 (1924); State v. Schneller, 199 La. 811, 7 So.2d 66 (1942). Stated differently, where the gravamen of the second offense is essentially included within the offense for which first . Page 509 . tried, the second ......
-
State v. Mahogany, 2017-KA-0377.
...defendant can be placed in jeopardy for only one of the two. State v. Coody,448 So.2d 100, 102–03 (La. 1984) ; see also State v. Roberts, 152 La. 283, 286–87, 93 So. 95, 96–97 (1922). The test "depends on the evidence necessary for a conviction, not all the evidence introduced at trial." St......
-
State v. Mahogany, 2017-KA-0377
...defendant can be placed in jeopardy for only one of the two. State v. Coody, 448 So.2d 100, 102-03 (La. 1984); see also State v. Roberts, 152 La. 283, 286-87, 93 So. 95, 96-97 (1922). The test "depends on the evidence necessary for a conviction, not all the evidence introduced at trial." St......