TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Chapman

The State of Louisiana v. W. H. Chapman

State v. Chapman, 38 La. Ann. 348 (1886)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1886
Docket
No. 9596
Judges
Manning
Citations
38 La. Ann. 348
Headnotes
This Court lias not jurisdiction of a criminal causo when the fine imposed is three hundred dollars. It must exceed that sum. If the costs added to the fine make an aggregate of over three hundred dollars, that will not confer jurisdiction. Th§fme must exceed that sum by the express letter of the Constitution. The obligation to pay the costs oí a criminal prosecution rests upon a convicted defendant as a necessary consequence of the conviction, and would there abide whether expressed in the judgment or not.
Summary
APPEAL from the Tenth District ■ Court, Parish of Rapides. Blackmail, J. ....

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Manning

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Manning, J.

The defendant was prosecuted for retailing spirituous liquors without a license, and on conviction was sentenced to pay a fine of three hundred dollars and the costs, and in default of payment to be imprisoned in the parish jail for sixty days.

Our jurisdiction in criminal cases is restricted to those wherein the punishment of death or imprisonment at hard labour may be inflicted or a fine exceeding three hundred dollars is actually imposed. Const. Art. 81.

The fine imposed on the defendant does not exceed three hundred dollars. It is exactly that sum. We have no more jurisdiction where the fine is three hundred than we should have if it was only three dollars.

The costs cannot he added to the fine so that the aggregate will make a sum within our jurisdiction because the fine must exceed three hundred dollars. And besides, the payment of costs by a convicted defendant or the obligations to pay them follows necessarily upon the conviction and rests upon the convicied party whether expressed in the judgment or not.

This Court has uniformly refused to assume jurisdiction in criminal causes unless they fall within the express letter of the Constitution. State vs. Drown, 27 Ann 236, and cases therein cited.

There is no motion to dismiss, but consent neither express nor implied can give us jurisdiction and therefore The appeal is dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1904: 11910: 11915: 11928: 11982: 119042026peak 1904 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Parish Board of Directors v. Hebert36 So. 497 (La. 1904)
  2. State v. Parker423 So. 2d 1121 (La. 1982)
  3. State v. Joseph68 So. 211 (La. 1915)
  4. State v. King119 So. 252 (La. 1928)
  5. Faraldo v. Ferdinand Gumbel & Co.54 So. 821 (La. 1910)

Most recent

  1. State v. Parker423 So. 2d 1121 (La. 1982)
  2. State v. King119 So. 252 (La. 1928)
  3. State v. Joseph68 So. 211 (La. 1915)
  4. Faraldo v. Ferdinand Gumbel & Co.54 So. 821 (La. 1910)
  5. Parish Board of Directors v. Hebert36 So. 497 (La. 1904)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list