No. 31725. Precedential Dismissed Processed

State v. Stinson

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed March 30, 1932 · 141 So. 44

Cited by

Harvey v. Havard 287 So. 2d 780 La. 1973
St. Paul Spiritual Temple v. Nedd 122 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
Loeblich v. Garnier 113 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
Shannon v. Berlin 92 So. 2d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
State v. Hamm 38 So. 2d 394 La. 1948
State v. Richard 14 So. 2d 615 La. 1943
Guidry v. Matherne 12 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
State v. Kennedy 189 So. 450 La. 1939
In Re St. Vincent De Paul Benev. Ass'n of New Orleans 175 So. 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
State v. Stephens 164 So. 162 La. 1935
Triche v. Brownell-Drews Lumber Co. 155 So. 1 La. 1934
State v. Eubanks 153 So. 31 La. 1934

Opinion text

OVERTON, J. Defendant, upon conviction, was sentenced to pay a fine of $301 for maliciously and wan *511 tonly injuring and defacing a church building. The record contains nine bills of exception, but they are of no value to defendant, even if they possessed merit, which they do not, for the reason that defendant has not placed himself in position to obtain relief by filing and pressing a motion for a new trial in the district court. This is defendant’s situation, because article 559 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that: “No new trial can be granted on appeal unless a motion for same has been made and refused in the lower court; provided that an appeal may be taken from the sentence imposed by a City Court to the District Court, though neither a motion for a new trial nor in arrest of judgment had been filed in the lower court.” The purpose of the article is to require the defendant to exhaust his recourses in the trial court by submitting for review the rulings there made, many of which, of necessity, were hastily made, before appealing to this court. It may be said, for what it is worth, that the record presents for review no motion in arrest of judgment, which may be said logically to follow, rather than precede, a motion for a new trial, and hence it is unnecessary to determine whether, if the record presented a motion in arrest for review, it could be passed upon, notwithstanding the failure to file and press a motion for a new trial. As defendant has not placed himself in position to obtain a new trial on the bills presented, the appeal should be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. O’NIELL, C. J., absent.