TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Precovara

State of Louisiana v. Peter Precovara

State v. Precovara, 21 So. 724 (La. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 29, 1897
Docket
No. 12,453
Judges
Breaux
Citations
21 So. 72449 La. Ann. 5931897 La. LEXIS 607
Headnotes
The offence was prescriptible. An indictment which has been declared a nullity does not interrupt prescription. A year had elapsed from the date of the alleged crime to the day the information was filed.
Summary
A PPEAL from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia. Voorhies, 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 — Breaux

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by Breaux, J.

An information for a prescriptible offence was filed.

A plea of prescription was interposed as a bar to the prosecution.

On the trial of this plea it was proved that an indictment had been found, which, upon a motion made by the defendant to quash, was-quashed by the court.

Whereupon the District Attorney filed an information.

The judgment of the District Court sustained the plea of prescription.

From the judgment the District Attorney has taken this appeal.

The defendant could not be legally convicted. The information did not negative prescription. The defendant had not failed to sus - tain his plea. The indictment was, upon this plea, decreed null.

The indictment which had been declared null did not interrupt prescription. No appeal was taken from the court’s order annulling it; it was as if it had not been found against the defendant.

This court has decided in a number of cases that a prior prosecution upon a fatally defective iudictment does not interrupt prescription, State vs. Morrison, 31 An. 211; State vs. Baker, 30 An. 1134: State vs. Curtis, 30 An. 1166.

The year having elapsed from the date, it was alleged in the information that the crime had been committed, to the date the information was filed, our only alternative is to affirm the judgment of the District Court.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1902: 11921: 11941: 21943: 11946: 11947: 119022026peak 1941 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Davenport v. State1921 OK CR 1, 202 P. 18
  2. State v. Lecompte36 So. 2d 695 (La. 1947)
  3. Pueblo v. Lugo58 P.R. Dec. 183 (1941)
  4. State v. Lester25 So. 2d 535 (La. 1946)
  5. People v. Lugo58 P.R. 185 (1941)
  6. State v. Shushan16 So. 2d 227 (La. 1943)

Most recent

  1. State v. Lecompte36 So. 2d 695 (La. 1947)
  2. State v. Lester25 So. 2d 535 (La. 1946)
  3. State v. Shushan16 So. 2d 227 (La. 1943)
  4. People v. Lugo58 P.R. 185 (1941)
  5. Pueblo v. Lugo58 P.R. Dec. 183 (1941)
  6. Davenport v. State1921 OK CR 1, 202 P. 18

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