Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

159 La. 768

106 So 298

State v. Smith

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided November 2, 1925

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1925-11-02

Relies on State v. Simmons · State v. Munlin · State v. Pullen

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1925-11-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 1981

4 state decisions

201925193019401950196019701980decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

LAND, .J.

¶1 Under an indictment for resisting an officer, defendant was convicted by a jury of five, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than 12 nor more than IS months.

¶2*769 Defendant has made no appearance in this court through counsel. However, we have examined the record carefully, and find no error patent upon its face.

¶3 While a motion for a new trial is found in the transcript, no formal bill of exceptions was reserved to the overruling of this motion, counsel for defendant having caused a mere notation of reservation of the bill to be entered by the clerk.

¶4 A mere notation by the clerk that defendant excepted and reserved a bill cannot be considered a bill of exceptions. State v. Miller, 138 La. 373, 70 So. 330; State v. Simmons, 118 La. 22, 42 So. 582; State v. Bradley, 136 La. 55, 66 So. 395; State v. Carr, 111 La. 716, 35 So. 839.

¶5 A motion for a new trial, without a proper and formal bill of exception, presents no question of law for review by this court. State v. Pullen, 130 La. 249, 57 So. 906; State v. Haynes, 133 La. 671, 63 So. 261; State v. Munlin, 133 La. 60, 62 So. 351; State v. Riney, 125 La. 121, 51 So. 89.

¶6 The conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed.

/159/la/768 · .json · Public domain