State v. McCauley, 144 So. 243 (La. 1932). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. McCauley, 144 So. 243 (La. 1932). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hayes v. Russell & Hazel Builders, Inc. (lactapp, 1965-10-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1933 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1933 1979 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Hayes v. Russell & Hazel Builders, Inc.
La. Ct. App. · 1965 · signal: see · confidence high
See Calatex Oil & Gas Co. v. Smith, 175 La. 678 , 144 So. 243 ; R.
cited Cited "see" Lake Charles Electric Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co.
La. Ct. App. · 1961 · signal: see · confidence high
See Calatex Oil & Gas Co. v. Smith, 175 La. 678 , 144 So. 243 ; R.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Louisiana
v.
James E. McCauley.
No. 31983..
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Oct 31, 1932.
144 So. 243
Thomas W. Robertson, of Shreveport, for appellant. Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O'Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James U. Galloway, Dist. Atty., Nash Johnson, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Shreveport, and James O'Niell, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for the State.
O'Niell.
Published
O’NIELL, C. J.

The appellant was convicted of breaking and entering a store, in the nighttime, with intent to commit larceny. The only bill of exceptions in the record has reference to a statement made by the district attorney to the defendant, on cross-examination, viz. : “Now you know that you had stopped off in Shreveport on your way to pull a job of robbery at McComb City, Miss.” The objection made to the statement was that there was no evidence of any such fact, and that the statement of the supposed fact was prejudicial to the defendant. The judge sustained the objection and immediately instructed the jury to disregard the statement of the district attorney, and to draw no inference from it prejudicial to the defendant. We; have no reason to doubt that the judge’s prompt admonition to the jury served its purpose, or that the defendant was not prejudiced by the district attorney’s statement.

The verdict and sentence are affirmed.