Case Name: STATE v. SMITH
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1925-11-02
Citations: 159 La. 768
Docket Number: No. 27465
Parties: STATE v. SMITH.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 159
Pages: 767–769

Head Matter:
(106 So. 298)
No. 27465.
STATE v. SMITH.
(Nov. 2, 1925.)
Robert M. McGehee, of Hammond, for appellant.
Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., Percy T. Ogden, Asst. Atty. Gen., A. L. Ponder, Dist. Atty., of Amite, and E. R. Schowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LAND, .J.
Under an indictment for resisting an officer, defendant was convicted by a jury of five, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than 12 nor more than IS months.
Defendant has made no appearance in this court through counsel. However, we have examined the record carefully, and find no error patent upon its face.
While a motion for a new trial is found in the transcript, no formal bill of exceptions was reserved to the overruling of this motion, counsel for defendant having caused a mere notation of reservation of the bill to be entered by the clerk.
A mere notation by the clerk that defendant excepted and reserved a bill cannot be considered a bill of exceptions. State v. Miller, 138 La. 373, 70 So. 330; State v. Simmons, 118 La. 22, 42 So. 582; State v. Bradley, 136 La. 55, 66 So. 395; State v. Carr, 111 La. 716, 35 So. 839.
A motion for a new trial, without a proper and formal bill of exception, presents no question of law for review by this court. State v. Pullen, 130 La. 249, 57 So. 906; State v. Haynes, 133 La. 671, 63 So. 261; State v. Munlin, 133 La. 60, 62 So. 351; State v. Riney, 125 La. 121, 51 So. 89.
The conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed.