# State v. Gatlin

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · April 24, 1961 · 241 La. 321

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9858965

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Louisiana v. Annie P. GATLIN and Carl Daniel
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** April 24, 1961
- **Citations:** 241 La. 321; 129 So. 2d 4; 1961 La. LEXIS 567
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fournet
- **Judges:** McCaleb, Fournet, Hamiter, Hamlin
- **Cited by:** 51 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part, on other grounds by State v. Liggett, 363 So. 2d 1184 (1978).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9858965

## Opinion text

FOURNET, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I fully concur with the conclusion reached in the majority opinion that inasmuch as the state failed to offer in evidence any proof to establish that the sale of alcoholic beverages in the Eighth Ward of Washington Parish is prohibited by a police jury ordinance adopted pursuant to a local option election in the ward, an essential element of the crime with which the defendants are charged, the trial judge improperly overruled the motion filed on behalf of defendants for a directed verdict of acquittal, and that, consequently, the conviction and sentences were properly set aside and the defendants ordered discharged.
Having reached this conclusion, it is my opinion it was unnecessary for the majority opinion to consider the other bills of exceptions, which entailed the overruling of a well-established line of jurisprudence affecting adversely the guarantee against double jeopardy as contained in our national and state constitutions, simply because since the last opinion on this subject was handed down there has been a change in the personnel of the court which results in the majority now entertaining views to the contrary. This is all the more true since this issue was not determinative of the matter and the question was not squarely raised or given serious consideration by counsel in either oral or written argument.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9858965. Public record. Not legal advice.