State in Interest of McDonald
| Decision Date | 11 December 1944 |
| Docket Number | 37688. |
| Citation | 207 La. 117,20 So.2d 556 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE In Interest of McDONALD. |
W.W McDonald and Albert P. Garland, both of Shreveport, for appellant.
Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M.E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edwin L. Blewer, Dist. Atty., and Wm. F. Woods, Jr., Asst Dist. Atty., both of Shreveport, for appellee.
This is a juvenile delinquency proceeding presented under the laws of this State, particularly Act 30 of 1924 creating the Juvenile Court for the Parish of Caddo. On February 10, 1944, a probation officer connected with the juvenile court filed two affidavits, alleging in one of the affidavits that Billy McDonald, a child under seventeen years of age, had committed a certain specific act of delinquency and, in the other affidavit, alleging a condition of delinquency resulting from the commission by the juvenile of a number of specific acts of misconduct over a period of months. Prior to the trial on the merits, the juvenile, through his mother, a resident of Florida, and his attorney, who is also his grandfather residing in the City of Shreveport, filed a plea attacking the constitutionality of Act 30 of 1924 creating the Juvenile Court for the parish of Caddo. The parties appearing for the juvenile also filed a motion to recuse the judge of the juvenile court from trying the plea of unconstitutionality on the ground of his personal and official interest in the outcome of the proceeding. The judge granted the motion and appointed Robert J. O'Neal, one of the judges of the District Court of Caddo Parish to act in this stead.
Because of the importance of the issue involved, the District Attorney of Caddo Parish intervened in the proceeding for the purpose of defending the constitutionality of Act 30 of 1924.
The plea of unconstitutionality was regularly set down for hearing before Judge O'Neal and after argument thereon the plea was overruled. Thereafter another motion to recuse the judge of the juvenile court was filed by the mother and grandfather of the juvenile on the ground that the judge had a preconceived opinion as to the guilt of the juvenile which he had expressed in a private conversation with the grandfather of the juvenile. After a hearing on the motion to recuse, the motion was denied and a bill of exception was reserved to the ruling. But no formal bill of exception was prepared and presented to the trial judge for his signature, hence, the ruling of the trial judge denying the motion for his recusation is not an issue on this appeal.
After a hearing on the merits, the trial judge held that the juvenile was a delinquent child and ordered him committed for an indefinite period to the Louisiana Training Institute. The judge granted an oral motion for an appeal made on behalf of the juvenile, but refused to suspend the exception of this judgment ordering the juvenile to be held in the custody of the chief probation officer pending his transfer to the Louisiana Training Institute.
On the application of the juvenile and of his attorney and grandfather, this Court issued a rule to show cause why the suspensive appeal should not be granted. Under a stay order which accompanied the rule, the juvenile was released pending the final disposition of the proceeding. After considering the petition for writs, the return of the respondent judge and the law applicable to the issue involved, this Court upheld the action of the trial judge in refusing to grant a suspensive appeal from his judgment. State v. McDonald, La.Sup., 20 So.2d 6.
No appearance has been made in this Court on behalf...
To continue reading
Request your trial