State v. Rosborough
| Decision Date | 27 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 26585 |
| Citation | 156 La. 1049,101 So. 413 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ROSBOROUGH |
Rehearing Denied by the Whole Court September 25, 1924
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans; J. Arthur Charbonnet, Judge.
E. J Rosborough was convicted of forging and uttering as genuine a certain record or public document, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
E. J Rosborough, pro se.
A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and Robert H. Marr, Dist. Atty., of New Orleans (T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
The defendant was charged by information, in two counts, with forging, and with uttering and publishing as genuine, a certain record or public document as set out in the information. He was convicted by a jury, and was sentenced to serve at hard labor in the penitentiary a term of not less than five nor more than seven years.
The document charged to have been forged purports to be a petition signed by Judge T. F. Bell of the First judicial district court, and addressed to the board of pardons, and reads as follows:
Ed Pitts was at the time an inmate of the penitentiary, serving a life sentence for shooting with intent to murder while lying in wait, and the defendant was interested in securing from the board of pardons a recommendation of commutation of the sentence of said Pitts.
The charge is brought under section 833 of the revised statutes:
"Whoever shall forge or counterfeit, or falsely make or alter, or shall procure to be falsely made," etc., "* * * any public record * * * or shall utter or publish as true any such false, altered, forged or counterfeited record * * * with intent to injure or defraud any person, or any body politic or corporate on conviction, shall," etc.
The errors complained of were urged in a motion to quash the information and in a motion for a new trial, and are embodied in three bills of exception. As there appears to be a repetition and reiteration in the several bills of the matters complained of, we shall consider the same in our own order.
1. It is contended that the information fails to disclose a right or cause of action, and is vague and indefinite and too general. The information follows the words of the statute. and sets out the forged document in full. This is all that could be required of the prosecutor. Moreover, the defendant has not pointed out in what respect the information fails to disclose (as he calls it) a cause of action, or wherein it is vague and indefinite. The appellate court can hardly be expected to search for points, and to raise issues which the defendant has not made.
2. It is urged that the criminal district court of the parish of Orleans is without jurisdiction; that the board of pardons is a nonjudicial body comprising the entire state on matters of executive clemency, and that its action is conclusive over all court actions.
The petition of recommendation purports to have been prepared, dated, and signed by Judge Bell at Shreveport, but as a matter of fact the evidence shows that the document was forged and issued by the defendant in the city of New Orleans. The criminal district court of this city therefore had jurisdiction of the crime.
There is no merit in the contention that the action of the board of pardons is not subject to judicial scrutiny, and is conclusive in matters of executive clemency. No action of the board of pardons is at issue in this case, and the court is not called upon to scrutinize or to review any act of said board. There is no connection or relation between the powers and functions of the state board of pardons, and the action of the state in its prosecution against the defendant for the crime of forgery. Whether the board of pardons acted on the forged recommendation is totally immaterial in this prosecution.
3. That the information fails to show any material writing, and fails to state any facts which constitute a crime under the laws of Louisiana. We understand from this that the document, the subject of the charge, is of no legal effect and is not such that a charge of forgery can be predicated upon.
Section 10 of article 5 of the Constitution of 1921 provides that the Governor shall have power to grant pardons and to commute sentences upon the recommendation in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bruscatto
... ... established; and the motion and affidavit must show not only ... reasonable diligence to' obtain the evidence after its ... discovery, but also reasonable diligence to discover the ... existence of the testimony." ... In the ... case of State v. Rosborough, 156 La. 1049, 101 So ... 413, 414, this court held: ... "In ... the motion for a new trial it is stated that since conviction ... the defendant has newly discovered evidence which was unknown ... to him previous to the trial; that a material witness has ... been discovered, unknown ... ...
-
Parker v. State
...statute. See State v. Escobedo, 404 So.2d 760, 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So.2d 464 (Fla.1982); State v. Rosborough, 156 La. 1049, 101 So. 413 (1924). See generally Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law ch. 4 Sec. 8, at 416 (3d ed. 1982); 4 Wharton's Criminal Law S......
-
State v. Jefferson
... ... Epperson, 289 So.2d 495 (La.1974), that this procedure does not necessarily prejudice the defendant. La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 852; State v. Slack, 227 La. 598, 80 So.2d 89 (1955); State v. Rosborough, 156 La. 1049, 101 So. 413 (1924) ... 'The motion for a new trial is based on the supposition that injustice has been done the defendant, and unless this is shown to have been the case the motion shall be denied, no matter upon what allegations it is grounded.' La.Code Crim.Proc ... ...
- Leininger v. New Orleans Item Pub. Co., Inc.