Case Name: STATE v. BROUSSARD
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1913-06-09
Citations: 133 La. 884
Docket Number: No. 19,937
Parties: STATE v. BROUSSARD.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 883–885

Head Matter:
(63 South. 390.)
No. 19,937.
STATE v. BROUSSARD.
(June 9, 1913.
On Rehearing Nov. 17, 1913.)
(Syllabus by the Oourt.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1159*) — Appeal—Findings of Fact.
This court is without jurisdiction to review the finding of a jury, in a criminal case, on a question of fact.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3074-3083; Dec. Dig. § 1159.*]
On Rehearing.
2. Criminal Law (§ 1159*) — Appeal—Sufficiency of Evidence.
Whether the evidence offered to prove a particular element of the offense charged was sufficient to convict is a question of fact over which this court has no jurisdiction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3074-3083; Dec. Dig. § 1159.*]
3. Criminal Law (§ 1144*) — Organization-Presumptions.
Where the minutes show that the indictment was presented by the grand jury in open court and ordered filed and made of record, it will be presumed that the grand jury was duly impaneled and sworn.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2736-2764, 2766-2771, 2774-2781, 2901, 3016-3037; Dec. Dig. § 1144.*]
4. Criminal Law (§ 1032*)—Appeal—Objec-tion Below—Indictment.
Formal objections to the sufficiency of the indictment cannot be urged for the first time on appeal.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2627, 2628, 2642; Dec. Dig. § 10Í52.*]
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; Thos. F. Bell, Judge.
J. M. Broussard was convicted of violating the Vagrancy Act (Laws 1912, No. 226), and appeals.
Affirmed.
H. C. Fisher, of Shreveport, for appellant. R. G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., and W. A. Mabry, of Shreveport, Dish Atty. (G. A. Gondron, of Donaldsonville, of counsel), for the State.

Opinion:
MONROE, J.
Defendant was convicted, under Act No. 226, of 1912, of being a male person, without visible means of support, who is feloniously living with a prostitute, and was sentenced to imprisonment for six months. He has made no appearancé in this court, in person or by counsel, and the only bill of exception that we find in the transcript is one reading, in part, as follows:
"Be it remembered that the defendant filed a motion for new trial *. on the ground that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and the evidence, in that the state failed to'prove that the party with whom the defendant was alleged to have lived was a prostitute, at and during the time that defendant is alleged to have lived with her."
The question thus presented being merely one of fact, this court is without jurisdiction to review the finding of the jury thereon. The verdict and sentence appealed from are, accordingly, affirmed.