State v. McCrocklin
| Decision Date | 12 February 1912 |
| Docket Number | 19,080 |
| Citation | 130 La. 106,57 So. 645 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. McCROCKLIN |
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans; Joshua G Baker, Judge.
Mary McCrocklin was convicted of perjury, and appeals. Affirmed.
H. N Gautier (Girault Farrar, of counsel), for appellant.
St Clair Adams, Dist. Atty., A. D. Henriques, Jr., Asst. Dist Atty., and Warren Doyle, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the State.
The defendant was charged with perjury. The district attorney presented an information to the court, in which he averred that the defendant had committed perjury in the case of the State v. E. S. Whitaker. She was tried and found guilty, and condemned to serve 12 months at hard labor in the state penitentiary.
The one point in the cause was raised by a motion in arrest of judgment, which was overruled and a bill of exceptions reserved. The contention of the defendant is that the district court had no jurisdiction in the case of the State v. E. S. Whitaker, in which he was prosecuted for a crime against nature and found guilty. After the record in his appeal to this court had been filed, he departed this life, and, in consequence, the appeal abated.
To the end of sustaining its contention, the defense urged that the information did not denounce a crime under Act 69 of 1896. Edward Stanley Whitaker was charged with the crime against nature, and was found guilty by a jury. There is no evidence before the court to sustain the ground of want of jurisdiction in matter of the Whitaker Case. No bill of exceptions was taken as relates to the point now urged that the indictment in the Whitaker Case was illegal and null, and that, in consequence, the court was without jurisdiction. It has been repeatedly decided, where a point is not brought up by bill of exceptions, no demurrer or motion to quash, or assignment of error, it will not be reviewed on appeal.
A similar question was presented to this court in State v. Bush, 117 La. 466, 41 So. 793, in which the trial judge had charged the jury, in writing, in regard to the law applying in words that gave rise to very serious contentions as to the correctness of the charge. The charge was not excepted to. The court held that, even if the charge given in writing in full did not follow the law applying, the court would not disturb the verdict, because no exception was taken. The question was discussed at length, and the court held, no bill of exceptions having been taken, it would adhere to the position previously announced in several decisions, and overruled those decisions not in accord with the principle laid down; that, in all instances on appeal, the rule referred to must be followed. It did not admit of an exception, and since that decision was rendered the ruling has been considered as binding. A number of decisions have been rendered and the verdict affirmed in accordance with the views expressed in the Bush Case, supra. Upon that statement alone, the case was disposed of on appeal. There is no good reason to set aside the ruling. In the cited case, the defendants were found guilty of murder without capital punishment. The court said:
"As there is no error on the face of the papers, no bill of exceptions was taken, the case is not reviewable on appeal." State v. Wilson, 109 La. 74, 33 So. 85.
On the same ground, the judgment was affirmed in State v. Marks, 119 La. 1035, 44 So. 856. In a case of that gravity, the rule here announced was expressly adhered to. The failure to take a bill of exceptions to the judge's charge is the same in effect to the failure to take a bill of exceptions on motion in arrest of judgment. The present case is much stronger by reason of the fact that, if the evidence had been introduced to establish the illegality of the indictment against Whitaker, it would not have been admissible.
There are therefore two illegalities: First, the evidence was not admissible if it had been offered, and if it had been admissible it was not offered, and no bill of exceptions, therefore, could have been taken as relates to the first point urged, which cannot be brought up in a motion in arrest of judgment.
We are lead to inquire whether there is error patent on the face of the record. This leads us to the inquiry, What is the record? A definition answers the question. It includes the caption in a criminal case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sanford
...So.2d 130, and the following authorities there cited: United States v. Taylor, 147 U.S. 695, 13 S.Ct. 479, 37 L.Ed. 335; State v. McCrocklin, 130 La. 106, 57 So. 645; State v. Leon, 177 La. 293, 148 So. 54; State v. Eubanks, 179 La. 92, 153 So. 31; State v. Daleo, 179 La. 516, 154 So. 437. ......
-
State in Interest of Aaron, In re
...court. State v. Bateman, 209 La. 1036, 26 So.2d 130; United States v. Taylor, 147 U.S. 695, 13 S.Ct. 479, 37 L.Ed. 335; State v. McCrocklin, 130 La. 106, 57 So. 645, 646; State v. Keife, 165 La. 47, 115 So. 363; State v. Leon, 177 La. 293, 148 So. 54; State v. Eubanks, 179 La. 92, 153 So. 3......
-
State v. Butler
... ... State v. McCrocklin, 130 La. 106, 57 So. 645.' ... Because of uncertainty as to the proper use of motions in arrest of judgment, the article was rewritten to clearly specify the grounds which will serve to arrest judgment. La.C.Cr.P. art. 859, official revision comment (a). It was still intended, ... ...
-
State v. LeBleu
... ... 582; State v. Aenspacker, 130 La. 717, 58 So ... 520; State v. Stewart, 188 La. 546, 177 So. 662. In the ... absence of a bill of exceptions, the judgment of the lower ... court will not be reversed except when there is error patent ... on the face of the record. State v. McCrocklin, 130 La. 106, ... 57 So. 645; State v. Braxton, 157 La. 733, 103 So. 24 ... Each of the ... above-cited authorities announcing the mentioned doctrine, it ... is true, involves an appeal brought by the accused after ... conviction. But we know of no good reason why the stated ... ...