State v. Moore

Citations

• 52 La. Ann. 605

Syllabus

<p>„ Syllabus.</p> <p>1. Considering tlie provision of Act 108 of 1808, requiring appeals in criminal cases to be taken within three days after sentence has been pronounced, it is, in the view of the court, beyond the power of the State, prior to sentence, to enter into a consent extending the time. The statute appears to be mandatory in terms, as its purpose is to regulate the time within which appeals shall be taken in criminal cases.</p> <p>2. The court, under the exceptional circumstances of the case, none the less, reviewed the issues, and disposed of the case on the merits and finds that there was no error in the ruling of the trial judge in permitting a witness * to testify over the objection of the defendant that he was the owner of the property which he found in the possession of his merchant, and which he identified by his merchant’s account.</p> <p>3. Regarding topics within the ordinary experience of jurymen, they are sufficient judges of the issue without expert testimony.</p> <p>4. After a witness had said something in regard to the contents of a letter which the witness said he was unable to produce, the court ruled out the evidence and informed the jury that it should not be considered as such. The defendant was not prejudiced in his defense thereby.</p> <p>5. The statement of the court, made part of the bill, is that the court did not refuse to permit the testimony of any witness to be taken down in writing to be made part of the bill of exception. No such request was timely made.</p>