State v. Conega

Citations

• 121 La. 522
• 46 So. 614
• 1908 La. LEXIS 704

Syllabus

<p>1. Indictment and Information — Motion to Quash — Nature—Disposition.</p> <p>A motion to quash an indictment for defects of statement therein corresponds to an exception in a civil case that “plaintiff’s petition discloses no cause of action.” Both are leveled at the pleadings in the action and seek to have the proceedings dismissed. Such a motion should be disposed of on the face of the papers, and not referred to the merits to be disposed of on evidence introduced. The postponement of action on the motion until the trial of the ease on its merits left unchanged the_ character of the motion as one leveled against the recitals and to be disposed of on the face of the papers. It was not changed by postponement to a plea (en pais) of prescription. From the standpoint of a motion to quash the indictment for the defects complained of, the motion was not well grounded, and under the provisions of section 1063 of the Revised Statutes it should have been refused. That section declares that no indictment shall be held insufficient for omitting to-state the time at which the offense was committed in any case where time is not of the essence of the offense.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 27, Indictment and Information, §§ 470, 474.]</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>Time was not of the essence of the crime charged in this ease. Prescription has no reference to the commission of crime, but to the time when the “prosecution of the .crime” was commenced after commission. The utmost relief to which defendant was entitled was to insist that the indictment should be made precise as to time. That relief was not asked for.</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>■ Had the indictment shown on its face that prosecution for the offense charged would be barred by prescription, had not some fact occurred to stop the running of the same, the existence of such fact would have been necessary to have been alleged in the indictment; but the indictment in this case did not show that conditi