Case Name: STATE v. DELHOM
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1925-04-27
Citations: 158 La. 668
Docket Number: No. 27149
Parties: STATE v. DELHOM.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 158
Pages: 667–669

Head Matter:
(104 So. 493)
No. 27149.
STATE v. DELHOM.
(April 27, 1925.
Rehearing Denied May 25, 1925.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Criminal law <@=444 — Certified copy of deed of sale of automobile bearing seal of notary before whom original was executed was.sufficiently authenticated.
Certified copy of deed of sale of automobile of same motor number as that found in possession of defendant, and bearing seal of notary before whom original was executed, held sufficiently authenticated to authorize its use in evidence in prosecution for having in possession an automobile knowing it to have been stolen.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans; N. E. Humphrey, Judge.
Rene Delhom was convicted of having in his possession an automobile, knowing that it was stolen, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Thomas V. Craven, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Marr, Dist. Atty., and Wm. A. Porteous, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., both of New Orleans, and Percy T. Ogden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
O'NIELL, C. J.
Appellant was convicted of having a stolen automobile in his possession, knowing it was stolen. A police officer, testifying for the state, said that he found the automobile in defendant's possession, and he stated the motor number of the car. In connection with the testimony, the district attorney introduced in evidence a certified copy of a deed of sale of an automobile having the same motor number. The deed had been executed before a notary public, and the certified copy bore his seal. Defendant's attorney objected to the offering of the document in evidence on the ground that it had to be identified by the notary public. The judge overruled the objection, and an exception was taken to his ruling.
Our judgment is that the ruling was correct. The document was sufficiently identified or authenticated by the certificate bearing the official signature and seal of the notary public. It was not objected or contended that the document was not admissible in evidence, if sufficiently identified or proven to be genuine. The testimony annexed to the bill of exceptions does not fully explain the relevancy of the document complained of; but there was no objection on that score.
The verdict and sentence are affirmed.