State v. Behan

Citations

• 113 La. 754
• 37 So. 714
• 1904 La. LEXIS 703

Syllabus

<p>GAMBLING — INFORMATION—SUFFICIENCY —AID - ING AND ABETTING — FARO—EVIDENCE.</p> <p>1. The defendant, prosecuted under a statute directed against gambling, was charged, without uncertainty or ambiguity in the charge, with having committed an offense in violation' of the statute.</p> <p>2. The statute is complete and plain enough. There was no necessity, in writing the information, to expand and amplify it beyond the statutory words.</p> <p>3. The present statute, under which defendant was prosecuted, in substance, re-enacted the repealed act of 1855, p. 145, No. 120, and decisions rendered under the act of 1855 are authoritative and have bearing upon issues here.</p> <p>4. In a prosecution under the very statute under which defendant is prosecuted, this court held:</p> <p>“This instrument is drawn in the words of the statute, and although the latter denounces distinct offenses, it does not follow that these cannot be included in the same count without being obnoxious to the charge of duplicity. The rule that the defendant must not be charged with having committed two or more offenses in any count of the indictment does not apply to cumulative offenses denounced in the same statute.” State v. Markham, 15 La. Ann. 498.</p> <p>5. One who aids and abets in keeping a banking game or banking house — the act being made one by statute with the principal act — may be prosecuted in one count setting out the principal and the acts of aiding and abetting.</p> <p>6. “A faro game is a banking game.” State v. Markham, supra.</p> <p>7. The offense alleged was one of a system of mutually dependent offenses. Evidence of a prior offense, not remote, was admissible to prove the continuity of the offense, but not to prove the offense charged.</p> <p>8. Grounds had been laid of offense committed before proof was offered of prior offense of keeping a banking game, or of assisting in keeping such a game.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>