State v. Hudson
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Tenth Judicial District Court, parish of DeSoto. Logan, J. First — That if counsel for defendant had not been informed of the existence of certain important facts at the time of trial, because of the ignorance of his client, and failed to make proof of them in consequence thereof, a new trial ought to be granted on a proper showing. Bishop on Crim.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Tenth Judicial District Court, parish of DeSoto. Logan, J. First — That if counsel for defendant had not been informed of the existence of certain important facts at the time of trial, because of the ignorance of his client, and failed to make proof of them in consequence thereof, a new trial ought to be granted on a proper showing. Bishop on Crim. Pro., sec. 1281. Second — That an affidavit of defendant, sufficient in itself to entitle him to a new trial, ought not to be .disregarded on the ground that th.e court deems him unworthy of belief. Third — That upon a charge of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
The defendant was, on a charge of petty larceny, prosecuted, tried, convicted and sentenced to the State penitentiary, at hard labor, for the term of eight years.
From the verdict and sentence he appeals, and assigns as errors, on the face of the record :
1st. That the judge should have granted him a new trial on the affidavits filed with his application.
2d. That the maximum of punishment for petty larceny is imprisonment at hard labor for two years, and that the District Judge has sentenced him to eight years at hard labor in the State…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Erlinger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2024
- Erlinger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2024
- State v. FindlingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- State v. NejinSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1917
- State v. ReillySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.