State v. Schemp
| Decision Date | 02 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 30987 |
| Citation | 133 So. 367,172 La. 72 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. SCHEMP |
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; E. P Mills, Judge.
T. K Schemp was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J. F. Phillips, of Shreveport, for appellant.
Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., E. R. Schowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James U. Galloway, Dist. Atty., of Shreveport, for the State.
O'NIELL, C. J.
The appellant was convicted of the offense of manufacturing intoxicating liquor. The record contains two bills of exception.
The first bill sets forth a complaint that the case was tried too hastily. The defendant was arrested on a Sunday afternoon, and was released on bond the next day. He was called for arraignment on Tuesday, the second day after the arrest; and his attorney asked for further time in which to examine the bill of information. The judge refused to postpone the arraignment and, on motion of the district attorney, ordered the case fixed for trial for the next Friday. The attorney for the defendant complained that he could not prepare to try the case so soon, and asked that the case be fixed for trial on a later date; which request was also denied. There was no request for a continuance when the case was called for trial. There is no showing that the attorney for the defendant needed further time in which to examine the bill of information, at the time of the arraignment, or that the defendant was deprived of any just advantage in the enjoyment of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. There is therefore no merit in the first bill of exceptions.
The second bill has reference to the overruling of a motion for a new trial. The motion was based upon the averment that it was not proved that the offense charged was committed in the state of Louisiana. It appears in the statement per curiam that the defendant was accused of operating a whisky still on Tar Island, a part of which Island is in Louisiana and a part of which is in Texas; and the testimony convinced the judge beyond a reasonable doubt -- the case being tried by the judge and without a jury -- that the still was operated on the Louisiana side of the state line. It is well settled that a person accused of crime may insist upon having the question determined by the judge, in advance of the trial of the case upon its merits, as to whether the crime or offense charged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gallego v. State
...478); (Six days.) McAdams v. State, 216 Ala. 659, 114 So. 39; Carter v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 248, 234 S.W. 535; (Five days.) State v. Schemp, 172 La. 72, 133 So. 367; (Three days.) Holmes v. State, 38 Tex.Cr.R. 370, 42 S.W. 996; (One day.) Commonwealth v. Donnelly, 5 Pa.Dist. & Co. 657, affi......
-
State v. Pouncey
...v. White, 156 La. 770, 101 So. 136; State v. Dwyer, 159 La. 399, 105 So. 410; State v. Flores, 169 La. 22, 124 So. 132; State v. Schemp, 172 La. 72, 133 So. 367; v. Taylor, 173 La. 1010, 139 So. 463; State v. Leahy, 175 La. 659, 144 So. 138; State v. Florane, 179 La. 453, 154 So. 417. No su......
- Succession of Jessen v. Calcasieu Building & Loan Ass'n