Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

234 La. 28

99 So.2d 11

State v. La Borde

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided January 6, 1958

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1958-01-06

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The fact that appellant offered to marry the girl does not confer upon the jury the right to infer that she was unmarried at the time of the alleged unlawful act. Indeed, the evidence now relied on by the prosecution was unquestionably elicited and was admissible only for the purpose of showing appellant's efforts to evade prosecution; it had not even a remote bearing on the marital status of the young girl and is not now cognizable as a substitute for proof of an essential element of the offense.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 893 So. 2d 1009 - State v. Pitre

Relies on State v. Sawyer · State v. Roberts

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1958-01-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 2005 · most notably 440 So. 2d 1330 - State v. Allen (1983), State v. Gatlin (1961)

44 state decisions

140195819601970198019902000decided

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 →

HAWTHORNE, Justice

¶1(concurring).

¶2I agree with the views expressed by the writer of the opinion in Footnote No. 2. However, under the present jurisprudence, which I recognize, the defendant is entitled to a discharge, and for this reason I have signed the opinion.

HAMITER, Justice

¶3(dissenting).

¶4In a criminal case this court may interfere with the factual finding of the jury or the trial judge (as the case may be) only where there is no evidence at all to sustain the conviction. If there is some evidence in proof of the essential elements of the crime charged, either direct or circumstantial and regardless of the quantity thereof, we are without jurisdiction to pass on its sufficiency. State v. Sawyer, 220 La. 932, 57 So.2d 899. See also State v. Roberts et al., 224 La. 491, 70 So.2d 100 and the numerous decisions cited therein.

¶5Here the jury had before it circumstantial evidence indicating, and warranting the jury’s conclusion, that the victim was unmarried at the time of the alleged unlawful act. Thus, it was shown, according to the record, that then she was barely fourteen years of age, attending school, and living with her parents. Moreover, as the majority opinion correctly points out, there was considerable testimony elicited to the effect that, subsequent to the filing of the charges herein, the defendant on several occasions expressed a desire to marry the girl and endeavored to prevail upon her mother to consent to a marriage.

¶6It is my opinion, therefore, that the question presented by defendant’s motion for a new trial relates only to the sufficiency of the evidence and is not determinable by this court.

¶7I respectfully dissent.

/234/la/28 · .json · Public domain