State v. Champagne

8 Citing cases

  1. State v. Kennedy

    230 So. 2d 818 (La. 1970)   Cited 6 times
    In State v. Kennedy, 255 La. 295, 230 So.2d 818 (1970), this Court held that when it was alleged that there was a total lack of evidence of the offense charged this Court would review the legality of the conviction if the evidence was properly made part of the record.

    " Art. 7, Sec. 10 La. Constitution. State v. Belas, 134 La. 859, 64 So. 799; State v. Campbell, 173 La. 831, 138 So. 853; State v. Verret, 174 La. 1059, 142 So. 688; State v. Bonner, 193 La. 387, 190 So. 621; State v. Haddad, 221 La. 337, 59 So.2d 411; State v. Champagne, 251 La. 849, 206 So.2d 518. State v. Dunnington, 157 La. 369, 102 So. 478; State v. Brent, 248 La. 1072, 184 So.2d 14; State v. Page, 251 La. 810, 206 So.2d 503; State v. Champagne, 251 La. 849, 206 So.2d 518.

  2. State v. Robertson

    358 So. 2d 931 (La. 1978)   Cited 31 times

    However, failure to do so does not constitute reversible error in the absence of prejudice to defendant. State v. Russell, 352 So.2d 1289 (La. 1977); State v. Champagne, 251 La. 849, 206 So.2d 518 (1968). We find no such prejudice here.

  3. State v. Russell

    352 So. 2d 1289 (La. 1977)   Cited 16 times

    However, failure to do so does not constitute reversible error in the absence of prejudice to defendant. State v. Champagne, 251 La. 849, 206 So.2d 518 (1968). Defendant's motion for a mistrial is governed by La. Code Crim.P. art. 775, which states in pertinent part:

  4. State v. Baker

    340 So. 2d 565 (La. 1976)   Cited 1 times

    Nor do we find merit in his contention that the trial judge improperly admitted the evidence before the amendment was made, although the better practice, had there been an objection, would have been to amend the answer before such admission. State v. Champagne, 251 La. 849, 206 So.2d 518 (1968). We do not find in this instance any abridgment of the rights of this defendant.

  5. State v. Matthews

    257 La. 220 (La. 1970)   Cited 2 times

    State v. Fruge, 251 La. 283, 204 So.2d 287. See, State v. McLean, 216 La. 670, 44 So.2d 698; State v. Champagne, 251 La. 849, 206 So.2d 518; State v. Heymann, 256 La. 18, 235 So.2d 78. Cf. State v. Douglas, 256 La. 572, 237 So.2d 382. We have read the evidence of record and find that defendant herein was not identified by the victim of the attempted murder named in the Bill of Information.

  6. State v. Royal

    232 So. 2d 465 (La. 1970)   Cited 5 times

    These three bills lack merit. The State obviously followed our directive in the case of State v. Champagne, 251 La. 849, 206 So.2d 518, wherein, as in the case at bar, the evidence showed that the place allegedly burglarized was owned by one other than the one named in the bill of information and the trial judge, nevertheless, permitted the evidence to be introduced over defendant's objection. In that case we pointed out the better procedure would have been to do, as done herein, i. e., that the bill of information be amended in respect to the variance as provided for in Article 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and if the court concluded the defendant had been prejudiced in his defense on the merits, then it should grant a continuance as provided in Article 489 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  7. State v. Pagnotta

    253 La. 770 (La. 1969)   Cited 7 times

    In other words, this court lacks jurisdiction to decide a question of fact or the sufficiency of the evidence relating to the guilt or innocence of a party accused in a criminal prosecution; but, where there is some evidence, whether it be direct or circumstantial, to sustain the conviction, the Supreme Court cannot pass upon the sufficiency thereof, as that comes within the exclusive province of the jury. State v. Campbell, 173 La. 831, 138 So. 853; State v. Verret, 174 La. 1059, 142 So. 688; State v. Fountain, 175 La. 221, 143 So. 55; State v. Bonner, 193 La. 387, 190 So. 621; State v. Haddad, 221 La. 337, 59 So.2d 411; State v. Champagne, 251 La. 849, 206 So.2d 518. "See, also, State v. Plaisance, 252 La. 212, 210 So.2d 323; State v. Page, 251 La. 810, 200 So.2d 503. The record contains some evidence that defendant had a scar on his face at the time he was allegedly observed by the victim Mrs. Naihaus.

  8. State v. Vale

    252 La. 1056 (La. 1968)   Cited 33 times
    In State v. Vale, 252 La. 1056, 215 So.2d 811 (1968), rev'd on other grounds 399 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970), we stated, erroneously in my opinion, that the district attorney's practice of granting immunity from prosecution as multiple offenders to those who pleaded guilty to felony charges was not discriminatory.

    In other words, this court lacks jurisdiction to decide a question of fact or the sufficiency of the evidence relating to the guilt or innocence of a party accused in a criminal prosecution; but, where there is some evidence, whether it be direct or circumstantial, to sustain the conviction, the Supreme Court cannot pass upon the sufficiency thereof, as that comes within the exclusive province of the jury. State v. Campbell, 173 La. 831, 138 So. 853; State v. Verret, 174 La. 1059, 142 So. 688; State v. Fountain, 175 La. 221, 143 So. 55; State v. Bonner, 193 La. 387, 190 So. 621; State v. Haddad, 221 La. 337, 59 So.2d 411; State v. Champagne, 251 La. 849, 206 So.2d 518. "The Supreme Court has control of and general supervisory jurisdiction over all inferior courts. * * * In criminal matters, its appellate jurisdiction extends to questions of law only."