State v. Henderson

Citations

• 113 La. 232
• 36 So. 950
• 1904 La. LEXIS 640

Syllabus

<p>CRIMINAL LAW — APPEAL—REVIEW—NEW TRIAL —SURPRISE—BILL OE EXCEPTIONS — RECORD — TRIAL—ALLOTMENT OE CASES.</p> <p>1. The allegation in a motion for new trial that the verdict is contrary to law and the evidence specifies no error, and is entitled to no consideration.</p> <p>2. Complaint by a defendant in a criminal prosecution of surprise in the testimony of a witness sworn on his behalf should be made when the testimony is given, and comes too late in a motion for new trial. But if it were otherwise, and the matter could properly be considered in this court upon a bill of exceptions to the overruling of the motion for new trial, the testimony complained of should be made part of the bill.</p> <p>3. Where, in a motion for new trial, it is averred that there was error in the refusal of the trial judge to strike out proof of an alleged confession by the defendant, but the record fails otherwise to show or suggest that any such proof was offered, objected to, or admitted, no relief can be afforded in the appellate court.</p> <p>4. Objections to the manner of allotting cases in the criminal district court should be made before going to trial. The instant case was, however, properly allotted upon the affidavit sent up from the First city criminal- court, the filing of which was the “inception” of the case, within the meaning of the Constitution.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>