State v. Franklin
| Decision Date | 14 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | 36971. |
| Citation | 12 So.2d 211,202 La. 439 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. FRANKLIN. |
Nicholas G. Carbajal, of New Orleans, for relator.
J Bernard Cocke, Dist. Atty., and George McCulloch, Jr., both of New Orleans, for respondents.
Charles Franklin, the sixteen year old son of Mary Franklin, was charged in the Juvenile Court for the Parish of Orleans with delinquency in that he, on the 30th day of November, 1942 with a dangerous weapon, to-wit: a knife, did stab and would one Jimmie Cry, 15 years of age. He was arrested and placed by order of the Judge of the Juvenile Court in the Milne Municipal Colored Boys' Home pending trial. His case was set for trial for December 18, 1942. The trial was continued because of the illness of the Judge of the Juvenile Court and reset for trial for January 15, 1943. On December 18, 1942 the day the trial was continued, the attorney for the juvenile made application to have the juvenile released on bond pending trial. The Judge of the Juvenile Court refused to grant bond. Mary Franklin, the mother of the juvenile sought by habeas corpus proceedings in the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans to secure the release of the juvenile which was denied. She then applied to Appellate Division No. 2 of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans for an alternative writ of mandamus which was refused on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction. She thereupon applied to this court for the writ of mandamus, seeking an order commanding the Judge of the Juvenile Court to release the juvenile on bond pending trial. The writ was granted, and a rule nisi issued. The matter is now submitted for our determination.
The relator contends that the right to bail is a constitutional right, citing Article I, Section 12, of the Constitution of 1921. She takes the position that if Section 5 of Act No. 126 for the year 1921, Ex.Sess., is construed so as to deny the right of bail that such provision of the Act is unconstitutional in that it violates Article, I, Section 12, of the Constitution.
The respondent judge takes the position that Act No. 126 of 1921, Ex.Sess., is an enabling act passed to put Section 96 of Article VII of the Constitution of 1921 into effect, thereby creating constitutionally the juvenile court for a special locality for which a special procedure has been created. The respondent judge cites State v. Clark, 186 La. 655, 173 So. 137, in support of this position.
It is conceded that all persons are bailable by sufficient sureties except those charged with capital offenses and those who have already been convicted where a minimum sentence of more than five years at hard labor has been actually imposed. However, the respondent contends that this article of the Constitution does not apply to minors under the age of seventeen who are charged and tried in the Juvenile Court.
Section 5 of Act No. 126 of 1921, Ex. Sess., provides as follows ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Naylor
...Wash. 526, 211 P. 274 (1922); State v. Clark, 186 La. 655, 173 So. 137 (1937). The latter case was distinguished in State v. Franklin, 202 La. 439, 12 So.2d 211 (1943), in which it was held that a delinquent child does have a constitutional right to bail. The cases are collected in an annot......
-
Daily Advertiser v. Trans-La, a Div. of Atmos Energy Corp.
...is embodied in the constitution, it is axiomatic that constitutional provisions prevail over statutory provisions, State v. Franklin, 202 La. 439, 12 So.2d 211 (1943).22 See Square D, supra (antitrust action for treble damages by private party); Keogh, supra (same); Wegoland, Ltd. v. Nynex ......
-
People ex rel. Davis v. Vazquez, s. 55050
...the adult criminal justice system, should not be interpreted as depriving minors of their constitutional rights. (State v. Franklin (1943), 202 La. 439, 443, 12 So.2d 211, 213.) This court has held that juveniles have the same right to be released on bail pending an appeal of an adjudicatio......
-
D., In re
...(cf. Matter of Contreras, 109 Cal.App.2d 787, 241 P.2d 631; Ex parte Osborne, 127 Texas Cr.R. 136, 75 S.W.2d 265; State v. Franklin, 202 La. 439, 12 So.2d 211; Matter of Gault, 99 Ariz. 181, 407 P.2d 760).' Following its decision in Gault the Supreme Court was presented with the question of......
-
The Denial of a State Constitutional Right to Bail in Juvenile Proceedings: the Need for Reassessment in Washington State
...so under the United States Constitution. See infra notes 75-76. 68. Trimble v. Stone, 187 F. Supp. 483 (D.D.C. 1960); State v. Franklin, 12 So. 2d 211 (La. 69. 12 So. 2d 211 (La. 1943). The Franklin court recognized juveniles' state constitutional right to bail pending adjudication. Id. at ......