State v. Fontenot, 58 So. 1033 (La. 1912). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Fontenot, 58 So. 1033 (La. 1912). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
57 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State ex rel. Plaquemines Parish School Board v. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (lactapp, 2012-09-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1918 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1918 1972 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Plaquemines Parish School Board v. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
La. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
In that case, the Court found that “[t]he proposition that the rule of prescription established by the Constitution does not apply to the state in her capacity as trustee is untenable.” Id. at 1037.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Terrebonne Parish School Board v. Mobil Oil Corp. (2×)
5th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Id. at 1035.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Terry v. Butler (2×)
La. · 1960 · confidence medium
Williams Cypress Company, Limited, 131 La. 62 , 58 So. 1033, 1036 (cited in the Kennedy decision and relied on herein by plaintiffs), we observed: “* * * In the instant case, as in the case of Eastman v. Harris, supra, the ends of justice are subserved by holding that the owner is entitled to the profit resulting from the change made in the form or condition of the property by the possessor in legal bad faith, and that the latter cannot reasonably expect anything more than the reimbursement of the expense incurred in making the change. * * * ” There, the wrongdoer was in legal, but not in …
cited Cited "see" Schneider v. Rockwell-Powers Lumber Co.
W.D. La. · 1940 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Williams Cypress Co., 131 La. 62 , 58 So. 1033 ; Allen v. Frank Janes Co., 142 La. 1056 , 78 So. 115 ; Gould v. Bebee, 134 La. 123 , 63 So. 848 ; Rusca v. Boulet, La.App., 142 So. 319 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE
v.
FONTENOT
No. 19,424.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jun 13, 1912.
58 So. 1033
L. A. Fontenot, for appellant. Walter Guión, Atty. Gen., and R. Lee Garland, Dist. Atty. (G. A. Gondran, of counsel), for the State.
Land.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
LAND, J.

The accused was indicted for murder, and pleaded not guilty. On the day set for the trial of the ease the following entry was made on the minutes of the court, to wit:

“On motion of the district attorney, the defendant was called for trial on the charge of manslaughter.”

The trial proceeded, and the accused was found guilty as charged by the unanimous verdict of the jury. A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, and the accused was sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for 10 years. The accused has appealed.

We find attached to the record a bill of exception, not signed by the trial judge, for the reason that “no such bill was taken.” The bill recites that the accused objected to going to trial on the charge of manslaughter “for the reason that the indictment for murder had never been nolle prossed.” As it appears on the record that the accused was indicted for murder and tried for manslaughter, we think the legality of the proceeding may be considered as on assignment of error.

[1] The state had the right to abandon the charge of murder and to try the accused for manslaughter. Why should the accused complain of being relieved of all chance of conviction of the greater offense? See State v. Evans, 40 La. Ann. 216, 3 South. 838.

[3] There is an unsigned, bill of exception to the alleged charge of the court that nine members of the jury could render a verdict. The trial judge certifies that “no such bill was taken.” The record shows that all of the jurors concurred in the verdict.

Another bill, which the trial judge certifies was not reserved at the time, recites objections to rebuttal and surrebuttal evidence adduced on the part of the state. The bill shows that the same privilege was extended to the accused.

[2] The last bill was signed by the judge, but is without merit. A defense witness may be cross-examined as to his relations with the accused, for the purpose of showing bias, though nothing was said on the point in the examination in chief. State v. Willingham, 33 La. Ann. 537; State v. Fletcher, 127 La. 602, 53 South. 877. The discrediting of a witness is always relevant to the issue. State v. Griggsby, 117 La. 1046, 42 South. 497. The bias of a witness may be proved by his own testimony upon cross-examination or by independent evidence. Underhill on Evidence, p. 305.

After the cause was submitted, counsel for the accused filed briefs, in which, for the first time, objections were made based on alleged defects in the minutes of the court. Such objections come too late.

Judgment affirmed.