Case ID: la_142/html/0719-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      MONROE, O. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(77 South. 514)
    No. 22856.
    STATE v. PREUETT et al.
    (Jan. 3, 1918.)
    
      (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
    1. Criminal Law <@=j1090(7) — Review—Motion for Continuance.
    The overruling of a motion for continuance in a criminal case will not be reviewed by this court where no bill of exception was reserved.
    2. Criminal Law &wkey;>942(l) — Newly Discovered Evidence — Impeaching Evidence.
    The intention to impeach the testimony of witnesses, as given on the trial in a criminal case, by newly discovered evidence, is not a legal ground requiring the granting of a new trial.
    Appeal from Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Grant; W. F. Blackman, Judge.
    Tom and Henry Preuett were convicted of willfully shooting at two persons named in the indictment, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    C. H. McCain and J. W. Ethridge, both of Colfax, for appellants. A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and T. A. Carter, Dist. Atty., of Alexandria (Vernon A. Coco, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
   MONROE, O. J.

Defendants, having been convicted of willfully shooting at two persons named in the indictment, and sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor, appeal to' this court, but have made no appearance here, either in person or by counsel.

It appears from the transcript that they moved for a continuance, but reserved no bill of exception to the overruling of their motion, the correctness of which cannot, therefore, be.inquired into. Marr’s Or. Jur. of La. p. 598.

Having been convicted, they moved for a new trial, upon the ground that they had thereafter discovered a witness who- would testify that one of the persons whom they had been convicted of shooting at had stated, shortly after the time of the alleged shooting, “that he did not know who shot at them, and would not testify as to who the parties were.”

It is not alleged that the person said to have been discovered did not testify in the case, but, even had it been, it would not have furnished sufficient ground to require the granting of a new trial.

“The intention to impeach the testimony of witnesses as given at the trial is not a legal ground for a new trial.” State v. Gauthreaux et al., 38 La. Ann. 611; State v. Young, 107 La. 620, 31 South. 993.

Judgment affirmed.