State v. Crucia
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Joseph Orucia was indicted for keeping a disorderly house, and from an order of the trial judge on his own motion quashing the indictment and discharging the accused, the State applies for writs of certiorari and prohibition and mandamus. Respondent Judge prohibited from executing the judgment ordering the indictment to be quashed and accused discharged, and the case reinstated on the docket of the court for trial.
Read the full summary
Joseph Orucia was indicted for keeping a disorderly house, and from an order of the trial judge on his own motion quashing the indictment and discharging the accused, the State applies for writs of certiorari and prohibition and mandamus. Respondent Judge prohibited from executing the judgment ordering the indictment to be quashed and accused discharged, and the case reinstated on the docket of the court for trial. The indictment charged that defendant “did keep a disorderly house, that is to say,' did keep a house at No. 342 North Rampart street open, to the public and conducted in a manner…
1Opinion of the CourtSommervillb, J.
The district attorney represents that the grand jury for the parish of Orleans returned an indictment charging Joseph Crucia with keeping a disorderly house, stating the nature of disorderly conduct in this house, at a designated place, on a certain day, in the city of New Orleans; that Crucia was arraigned and pleaded not guilty; that when the case was called for trial the judge, ex proprio motu, quashed the indictment and discharged the accused.
The district attorney then asked for a writ of prohibition against the district judge restraining him from quashing the indictment and for a writ of…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hurley v. HurleySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1920
- State v. BrooksSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1919
- State v. HarperSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1919
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. MeyersSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1925