153 LA 9 - State v. Mims

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1952

7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1By the WHOLE COURT.

ST. PAUL, J.

¶2Defendant was convicted of unlawfully manufacturing whisky for sale for beverage purposes, and was fined $500 and 60 days in jail, and 12 months additional if the fine be not paid. He appeals to this court.

¶3The record contains but one bill of exception, to wit, to a refusal of the district judge to exclude certain evidence obtained by search and seizure made without a search warrant.

¶4The bill is without merit. In Shreveport v. Marx, 148 La. 31, 86 South. 602, and again in State v. Fleckinger, 152 La. 337, 93 South. 115, this court held that evidence otherwise admissible in a criminal case, should not be excluded even though obtained by search and seizure without a search warrant.

¶5Decree.

¶6The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed. 1

O’NIELL, J., concurs in the decree, but does not approve the doctrine of State v. Fleckinger.