State v. Morgan
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Seventeenth District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge. Burgess, J. Due and proper diligence must be shown in order to obtain a continuance on the ground of the absence of a witness, and the judge a quo must use his discretion in such cases. 28 Ann. 40. The ruling of tho judge a quo on a motion for continuance in a criminal case involves both questions of law and fact, and cannot therefore he examined on appeal, because the jurisdiction of she appellate court…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Seventeenth District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge. Burgess, J. Due and proper diligence must be shown in order to obtain a continuance on the ground of the absence of a witness, and the judge a quo must use his discretion in such cases. 28 Ann. 40. The ruling of tho judge a quo on a motion for continuance in a criminal case involves both questions of law and fact, and cannot therefore he examined on appeal, because the jurisdiction of she appellate court in criminal cases is limited 1o questions of law alone. 23 Ann. 558. The general rule is that two distinct offenses…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Fenner, J.
The defendant moved for a continuance on the ground of the absence of a material witness, who, he alleges in his motion, had been duly summoned. The name of the witness was Jim. Smith, and one Jim Smith had been summoned and appeared, but defendant said it was not the man he referred to.
The judge allowed the sheriff to explain his action in the premises. He stated that on reception of the subpoena for Jim Smith he called on defendant for instructions, who told him lie did not know his residence, but that lie was “the Jim Smith who had been in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. DessellesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1922
- State v. HatawaySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1923
- Greco v. FrigerioLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1926