State v. Vicknair
Citations
- 118 La. 963
- 43 So. 635
- 1906 La. LEXIS 854
Syllabus
<p>1. Criminal Law — Appeal—Proceedings fob Transfer of Cause — Time.</p> <p>The provisions of Act No. 108, p. 155,_ of 1898, requiring “that appeals * * * in criminal cases * * * shall be taken by motion, verbally or in writing, in open court, within three days after sentence,” are mandatory, and, as there is no proviso in the act to the effect that, in the event that the trial court should adjourn immediately upon pronouncing sentence and should not open again until after the expiration of such three days, the delay within which the appeal is to be taken shall be extended until it again opens, it follows that, in such case, the defendant must take his appeal upon the day upon which the sentence is pronounced. It is only when the court remains open until, or reopens upon, the third day after the sentence is pronounced, that the defendant can avail himself of the full term “within” which he is required to act if he. desires to appeal.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>The expression “open court,” as used in Act No. 108, p. 155, of 1898, means the actual session of the court while the judge is on the bench, as contradistinguished from the “continuous session,” of 10 months, provided for by article 117 of the Constitution.</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>The word “term,” as used in Act No. 30, p. 56, of 1878, § 1, means the session during which the court is actually open, as contradistinguished from the continuous session, of 10 minutes, provided for by article 117 of the Constitution.</p> <p>On Rehearing.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>Adjournment of court cannot deprive accused of the three days allowed him for appealing.</p> <p>5. Criminal Law — Continuance—Grounds— Absence of Witnesses.</p> <p>Accused cannot complain of the refusal of a continuance for summoning witnesses, when he had ample opportunity for procuring the attendance of the witnesses, and has not chosen id avail himself of it.</p> <p>TEd. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, § 1336J</p> <p>6. Same —
Judges: Monroe, Provosty
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Huddleston v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals· 1953-01-06· cited 42×
- Moder v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1932-08-03· cited 9×
- Simeon v. Board of Levee Com'rsLouisiana Court of Appeal· 1929-11-18· cited 7×
- State v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1909-06-14· cited 4×
- Marque v. KolweLouisiana Court of Appeal· 1927-01-03· cited 2×
- State v. BrumfieldSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1928-07-02
- Gomez v. UlibarriNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1917-12-07
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State ex rel. State Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. MichelSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1900-03-15· cited 37×
- Lubbock v. CookTexas Supreme Court· 1878-07-01· cited 10×
- Swift v. TouseyIndiana Supreme Court· 1854-06-03· cited 10×
- Smith v. GaleSupreme Court· 1891-01-05· cited 9×
- Tupery v. EdmondsonSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1877-12-15· cited 7×
- State ex rel. Webb v. DeBaillonSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1899-04-05· cited 7×
- State ex rel. Mercier v. Judge of the Superior District CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1877-03-15· cited 6×
- Chapman v. AllenNebraska Supreme Court· 1891-09-30· cited 5×
- Noble v. MurphyIndiana Supreme Court· 1867-05-15· cited 5×
- State v. FairbanksSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1905-06-19· cited 5×
- State ex rel. Solari v. EllisSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1888-11-15· cited 5×
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1900-01-15· cited 5×
- Faure v. United States Express Co.Indiana Supreme Court· 1864-11-15· cited 4×
- Cawlfield v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama· 1871-01-15· cited 3×
- Carleton v. ByingtonSupreme Court of Iowa· 1864-04-22· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.