State v. RichardsonState v. Richardson
Relator, J. A. Richardson, charged with the crime of gambling denounced by Article 90 of the Louisiana Criminal Code,
There, are several bills of exception in the record. We need to consider, however, only those under which the relator seeks to have the prosecution dismissed, the ones resеrved to the ruling of the trial court overruling a motion to quash and a motion in arrest of judgment. The other bills of exception, if meritorious, woul 1 only entitle the defendant to a new trial, and, since he failed to ask for a new trial by a motion in the lower court, these bills will not be considered. Article 559 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
This case is before us under our supervisory jurisdiction. However, .the rule of law announced by Article 559 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .above quoted is applicable. Otherwise, the defendant in a criminal case who has successfully ob
tained writs under our supervisоry jurisdiction would have a greater right than a convicted defendant in a criminal case who has appealed tо this court under its appellate jurisdiction. In the latter case, a convicted defendant who has appealеd to this court cannot be granted a new trial unless a motion for the same has been made and refused in the lower cоurt. Moreover, from the jurisprudence of this court, relator should exhaust the remedies .in the court below before aрplying for writs to the Su? preme Court. State ex rel. Shakespeare v, Judge Civil Dist. Ct.,
The relator contends, however, that he is entitled to be discharged because the information is fatally defectivе. The pertinent part of the bill of information charges that the relator did “ * * * Wilfully, unlawfully and intentionally conduct and directly assist in thе conducting, as a business, at Norwood, Louisiana, of a game, contest, lottery and contrivance, by having and permitting in thе said premises the operation, use and playing of a mechanical device known as a Slot Machine, whereby a person risked the loss of a thing of value in order to realize a profit * *
He contends that the bill of information should be quashed for the following reasons: (1) It does not set out any offense denounced by any l'aw of this state but merely recites а conclusion of the law, since it does not set out with reasoned particularity the facts relative to the time, plаce, circumstances, and manner in which the alleged offense was committed, and thus does not inform him of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and therefore is in violation of the rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution and laws of this state; (2) it is so vague and indefinite that he cannot either prepare or present a proper defense or plead in such a manner as to bar him from further prosecution for the same alleged offense. Relator, in support of his motion in arrest of judgment, urges the same grounds as set forth in his motion to quash.
Under the jurisprudence of this court, the tests for detеrmining the sufficiency of a bill of information are: (1) Whether it is sufficient to inform the court of an offense charged so that the lower court may properly regulate evidence sought to be introduced; (2) whether it informs the accused of the naturе and cause of the offense charged so that he will be enabled to prepare his defense, and (3) whether it is sufficient on its face to support a plea of former jeopardy in the event of an
attempt to try defendant more than once for the same offense. State v. Pizzolotto,
The bill of information in the instant case discloses that it meets every test of sufficiency, and the trial court correctly overruled relator’s motion to quash and motion
The bill of information is also a bar to any further prоsecution of the defendant for the same offense. In State v. Foser,
Under the above rule, the bill of information is a complete bar to, and fully protects the accused from, any further prosecution under a subsequent charge of the crime of gambling conducted by the rеlator at any place within the town of Norwood, Louisiana, by the operation and use of a slot machine on the date charged in the bill of information.
The case of State v. Varnado,
For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.