Case Name: State of Louisiana vs. Victor Pierre
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1897-06-14
Citations: 49 La. Ann. 1159
Docket Number: No. 12,547
Parties: State of Louisiana vs. Victor Pierre.
Judges: Nicholls, 0. J., absent; ill.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 1159–1162

Head Matter:
No. 12,547.
State of Louisiana vs. Victor Pierre.
An Information charging llie defendant with-having committed the crime of petit larceny must be died or presented to the court'within one year nest after the offeneo shall have been made known to a public officer having the power to direct the investigation or prosecution; and if It appears from the rt cord that this provision of law has not been complied with, and the information fails to negative prescription cn its face, the plea of the. defendant urging the bur of the slatute will prevail.
After a decision by this court on a case as presented, the prosecution, no moro than the accused, can be heard to set up as grounds for rehearing the incompleteness of the record.
A PPEAL from the Twenty-second Judicial District Court for the ** Parish of Plaquemines. Hingle, J.
M. J. Cunningham, Attorney General, and Albert Estopinal, Jr., District Attorney, for Plaintiff, Appellee.
James Wilkinson, for Defendant, Appellant.
Submitted on briefs June 5, 1897.
Opinion handed down June 14, 1897.
Rehearing refused June 29, 1897.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Apteal.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Watkins, J.
The motion assigns, that the record discloses neither motion to quash, motion for new trial, nor motion in arrest of judgment; and, further, that it contains no bill of exceptions to any ruling of the trial judge, and that, as a necessary consequence, the defendant was without right to appeal.
But it appears from the record that on the day previous to the one on which the motion to dismiss was filed, defendant's counsel filed a special assignment of errors apparent on the face of the record to the effect (1) that the crime charged in the indictment was barred by the limitation of the statute at the lime same was presented; and (2) that it affirmatively appears by the record that the defendant was never arraigned, nor ever personally present at the time of any pretended arraignment.
In the presence of this assignment the motion can not prevail, as the defendant is entitled to be beard on those questions of law, notwithstanding they are for the first time raised by an assignment of error in this court. State vs. Balize, 38 An. 542; State vs. Hanks, 38 An. 468; State vs. Behan, 20 An. 389; State vs. Morel. 20 An. 402; State vs. Krepple, 20 An. 402.
The motion is denied.