State v. Goodson

• Decision Date: 12 February 1906
• Docket Number: 15,816
• Citation: 116 La. 388,40 So. 771
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. GOODSON et al

40 So. 771

116 La. 388

STATE v. GOODSON et al

No. 15,816

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 12, 1906

Appeal from Judicial District Court, Parish of Natchitoches; Charles Vernon Porter, Judge.

Thomas Goodson and others were convicted of murder, and appeal. Affirmed.

Breazeale & Breazeale, for appellants.

Walter Guion, Atty. Gen., and William Augustus Wilkinson, Dist Atty. (Lewis Guion and Samuel Jamison Henry, of counsel), for the State.

OPINION

NICHOLLS J.

Statement of the Case.

The defendants Tom Goodson, Antoine Mahlfous, alias Mack Abraham were indicted with Jules Silvie for the murder of one Ozeme Desidiere. The two former were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. They were tried and convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for life. Silvie was not arraigned, nor tried. The parties convicted appealed.

The first complaint made was when the accused were arraigned and the case fixed for trial. At that time counsel for Goodson and Mahlfous objected to the nonarraignment of Silvie, and to the fixing of the case, on the ground that all the parties charged in the indictment were not arraigned, although they were in custody. The objection was overruled.

The second complaint made is that the court refused to require the district attorney to furnish the accused with a bill of particulars setting forth in detail the particulars as to the time, date, and crime alleged to have been committed by them. They averred that the language of the indictment charging them with the crime of murder on or about the 3d day of July, 1905, was general and indefinite, and as their defense would be specific in character they desired to be furnished with the specifications, and that without the bill of particulars they would suffer irreparable injury, as they would be forced to trial without having prepared the proper defense.

The third complaint is that the court refused the application made to it to be accorded access to Jules Silvie then incarcerated in jail. They averred that by special order of the court a subpoena had been issued to the witness, on which return had been made by the sheriff, and that personal service thereof had been made. They averred that they were legally entitled to consult and have interviews with said Silvie, summoned as a witness on their behalf.

The fourth complaint is that the case having been regularly fixed for trial, counsel for Goodson and Mahlfous made a motion for a severance, which was tried and overruled.

The fifth complaint is that, over their objection, the court permitted one Charles Turner to give testimony in the case, notwithstanding the fact that at the beginning of the trial, on motion of the district attorney, acquiesced in by defendants' counsel, all the witnesses for the state and the defense were ordered to be marshaled and excluded from the courtroom, and placed under the rule of absolute exclusion; the said Turner had remained in the courtroom in violation of the order, and had heard five or six witnesses for the state testify.

The sixth complaint is that over defendants' objection, the court permitted to be introduced in evidence certain bonds which had been executed by Goodson and Mahlfous for appearance, to await action of the grand jury charged with the crime of lying in wait, and shooting at Ozeme Desidiere with intent to kill. The objection urged was because the bonds did not show motive or enmity and recited details of a difficulty or charge against the defendants, untrue in fact, and only the opinion of the magistrate writing the same, and was not proof of the fact, and was calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury, and was not the best evidence, and in fact, not evidence to show enmity and motive; that though positive, direct evidence as to a previous difficulty was admissible, an appearance bond was no evidence.

The seventh complaint is that the court improperly sustained a challenge of the juror Gerein by the district attorney.

The eighth complaint is that the court, over objection, allowed two witnesses to contradict the statement made to the court by one of the defendants' witnesses, that he did not understand the English language sufficiently to be able to testify and to show that the witness could speak the English language, and the court swore an interpreter to interpret his testimony. The objection urged was that the witness alone was the best judge as to his ability to understand the English language sufficiently well to comprehend the meaning of the questions propounded; that the matter was not impeachable, and formed no issue in the case.

The ninth complaint is that after the defendants closed their case, and after several witnesses had been sworn in rebuttal by the state, counsel for the defense stated to the court that they had just discovered important testimony in behalf of their client and requested the court to reopen the case to allow such testimony to be taken; that, if allowed so to do, they would show by one Gourden that several days subsequent to the homicide, Jules Silvie (the chief prosecuting witness and the person indicted jointly with the two accused on trial) had stated to him that "he knew nothing whatever about the killing and that it was foolish for him [Gourden] to think that Tom Goodson, one of the accused, would take him [Silvie] along to kill a man."

That this request to reopen the case was improperly refused.

The tenth complaint states that after the jury had left the courtroom and were on their way to the jury room in the custody of the sheriff to make up their verdict in the case the court having been informed by counsel for the accused that one "Buck Cloutier" had addressed Lagent Lamore, one of the jurors in the case, caused the said Cloutier to be brought into court. Whereupon the following proceedings were had:

By the Court (addressing Cloutier):

"I am informed that you made some remark or addressed one of the jurymen in this case. Is this correct?

"A. Yes, sir: did not think it was any harm. I just said: 'You look like you are warm.'

"Q. Is that all?

"A. Yes, sir."

By Counsel for the Prisoner: "It was 'Lagent'; the manner he said it has much to do with it. A. (by Cloutier) I said, 'Lagent, you look warm.'"

To this ruling of the court defendants objected.

The eleventh complaint is made by the accused that the jury having returned into court the following verdict, to wit:

"We, the jury, find the prisoners Tom Goodson and Kalil Mahlfous guilty of murder without capital punishment, as charged in the indictment."

The court charged the jury as follows:

"Gentlemen: One of the accused in this case, the indictment charges that his name is Kalil Mahlfous, alias Mack Abraham; now if you are satisfied from the evidence in the case that he is known by either of these names (alias meaning 'otherwise known as Mack Abraham'), I ask you to just retire to your room and interline after Kalil Mahlfous the words 'alias Mack Abraham.' That is within your discretion. I cannot refer to the evidence or decide what was proven, but if the evidence in this case satisfies you that he was known by either one of those names Kalil Mahlfous or Mack Abraham I will ask you to interline the words 'Mack Abraham' right after the name -- you understand."

Whereupon counsel for the accused excepted to the instruction of the court, and reserved the point for bill of exception.

In the per curiam attached to the bill the judge states:

"The accused had been indicted under the name Mahlfous, alias Mack Abraham, and the district attorney had amended his name after the case was called for trial by substituting the name 'Kailil,' so as to make it read 'Kalil Mahlfous, alias Mack Abraham.' When the jury returned into court with the verdict, I was not sure whether or not defendant's counsel had reserved a bill to said indictment, and, as the proof had shown that the said Mahlfous was almost entirely known as Mack Abraham, out of abundance of caution, and in order to identify him with the party charged in the indictment, beyond any doubt, I thought it best for the jury to use the word 'alias' in connection with him. The statement in the bill that the verdict had been 'returned' when the instructions therein mentioned were given is erroneous. The verdict had simply been handed to the judge by the foreman and before it was announced. I requested the jury to return to their room, and, in the event they were satisfied from the evidence that Mahlfous was generally known as Mack Abraham, to include that alias in designating him. Before the jury retired, I permitted counsel for defendant to make a literal copy of the verdict so as to avoid any suspicion on their part of any substantial change therein by the jury. The jury having retired and having made the suggested change returned into court and the verdict was regularly rendered and recorded."

Appellants presented in the Supreme Court, over the objection that it was made too late, an assignment of error, which the court allowed to be filed without prejudice.

They assigned as error that they did not have a fair and impartial trial, and their rights guarantied by the laws of the state were not protected and preserved in said trial in the particular that Act No. 113, p. 162, of the General Assembly of 1896 was not observed by the honorable the eleventh judicial district court in the conduct of their trial, and the rights guarantied to them by the act aforesaid were ignored and denied. They averred that the facts upon which the several bills of exception taken on their behalf by their counsel during their trial to the rulings of the district court were not reduced to writing by the clerk or other person as required by Act No. 113, p. 162, of 1896 that only vague, indefinite and...