State v. Bertin

Decided May 15, 1890

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1890-05-15

Balcer, J. If the record contains neither a bill of exceptions, motion in arrest of judgment assignment of error or error patent on its face, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed. 11 An. 328. Application for new trial must be sworn to. 37 An. 1. The evidence upon which a motion for anew trial was denied by the court below can not be considered an appeal, unless brought up by a bill of exceptions. 39 An. 780 ; 38 An. 581.

Decided 1890-05-15

¶1 *749The opinion of the court was delivered by

McEnbry, J.

¶2The accused was convicted of entering a store in the night time, without breaking, and of grand larceny, and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. He has appealed from the verdict and sentence.

¶3There is no bill of exception, motion in arrest of judgment, or an assignment of errors in the record. There are no errors to be found on the face of the record, after an inspection of the same, that would entitle the accused to relief.

¶4The motion for a new trial is not sworn to, and there is no question of law brought up in a bill of exceptions which we can consider in connection therewith.

¶5The judgment appealed from in such a case will not be disturbed. State vs. Sweeney, 137 Hu., p. 1; State vs. Deas, 38 An. 581; State vs. Davis & Fletcher, 41 An. 328; State vs. Tranchon, 41 An. 619.

¶6Judgment affirmed.