Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

38 La. Ann. 144

State v. Brabson

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided March 15, 1886

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1886-03-15

<p>The State can. appeal in criminal cases after verdict rendered and judgment has been arrested.</p> <p>In an indictment for murder it is not essential that the name of the deceased should follow the word “murder.” If it be in another part of the sentence so that it certainly appears to be the object of thatverb, and there can be no doubt upon whom the crime is charged to have been committed, it is sufficient to answer the requirements of our statute.</p> <p>If the prisoner is fully informed by the indictment for the murder of what person he is accused, so that if he had been acquitted he could plead autrefois acquit to another indictment for the murder of the same person, the indictment is good.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1927

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Manning, J.

¶2The defendant was indicted for murder, was convicted of manslaughter, and moved in arrest of judgment, which motion being sustained the State appealed.

¶3The prisoner moves here to dismiss the appeal on two grounds:

¶41. That the State cannot appeal in criminal cases after verdict rendered.

¶5We have recently held that the same reasons that entitle the State to an appeal when the indictment has been quashed and the prosecution has thus been prevented, apply when the prosecution has been *145successful and judgment thereon has been arrested. State v. Robinson, 37 Ann. '673.

¶62. “That there has been no final settlement of the case in the lower court, the accused being still held for trial for the same offence.”

¶7The object of the appeal is to make final the trial already had.

¶8The motion is denied.

¶9The ground of the motion in arrest is, “it is not charged in the indictment that the accused did make an assault, nor is it charged that the accused did feloniously and of his malice aforethought kill and murder John F. Webb.”

¶10The indictment charges that the prisoner “ with force and' arms in and upon the body of one John F. Webb, a person in the peace of the State, then and there being feloniously, willfully, and of his malice aforethought did kill and murder contrary, etc.”

¶11The objection appears to be that the name of Webb is not repeated after the word “murder.”

¶12By our statutes nothing more is required in an indictment for murder but to charge that the accused did feloniously, willfully and of his malice aforethought, kill and murder the deceased. Rev. Stats., sec. 1048. It is not sacramental that the name of the deceased shall follow the word “murder.” If it be in another part of the sentence, so that it certainly appears to be the object of that verb, and there can be no doubt upon whom the crime is charged to have been committed, it is sufficient to answer the requirements of the statute. Wharton Cr. PI. and Pr. § 760.

¶13The prisoner is fully informed by this indictment for the murder of what person he is charged, and if he had been acquitted could have pleaded autrefois acquit to another indictment for the murder of the same man. State v. Frances, 36 Ann. 336; State v. Simien, Ibid, 923.

¶14The motion in arrest was improperly sustained and the case must be reffianded for sentence to be passed upon the prisoner for the crime of which he has been convicted.

¶15It is therefore ordered and decreed that the ruling of the lower court sustaining the motion in arrest of judgment is avoided and reversed, and the case is remanded with directions to the judge below to pass sentence upon the prisoner according to law.

/38/laann/144 · .json · Public domain