State v. Coile
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 5th Cir., April 13, 1959 111 So. 2d 380
State v. Coile, 69 So. 90 (La. 1915).
Cited by
Followed in 1
- State v. McCall 110 So. 723 La. 1926
- State v. Hebert 107 So. 123 La. 1926
- State v. Lewis 105 So. 243 La. 1925
- State v. Cryar 104 So. 304 La. 1925
- State v. Marcantel 104 So. 612 La. 1925
- State v. Smith 71 So. 734 La. 1916
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Munlin 133 La. 60
Opinion text
PROVOSTY, J. [1] The accused, charged with having sold intoxicating liquors without a license, called for a bill of particulars that should set forth the date and place of the sale, the hind and quantity of the liquors, and the name of the person to whom sold. All these particulars were furnished him, except the name of the person to whom the liquors were sold. To the latter he was not entitled. State v. Munlin, 133 La. 60 , 62 South. 351 . [2] In the brief the statement is made that the accused was convicted upon the testimony of the person to whom the liquors were sold, and that it has been found out since the trial that these persons were unreliable witnesses; and it is said that by not furnishing the names of these persons the prosecution deprived the accused of his right to impeach these witnesses. This court cannot consider statements of facts appearing in the brief only, not in the record. Judgment affirmed.