State v. Odom

• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PONDER, Justice.
• Citation: State v. Odom, 192 La. 257, 187 So. 659 (La. 1939)
• Decision Date: 06 March 1939
• Docket Number: 35217
• Parties: STATE v. ODOM et al

187 So. 659

192 La. 257

STATE v. ODOM et al

No. 35217

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 6, 1939

Appeal from Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Allen Mark C. Pickrel, Judge.

Riley Odom and Elmer Odom were convicted of breaking and entering in the nighttime, and they appeal.

Affirmed.

James A. William, of Lake Charles, for appellants.

Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O'Connor, First Asst Atty. Gen., and C. V. Pattison, Dist. Atty., and John H Martin, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Lake Charles, for the State.

OPINION

PONDER, Justice.

The defendants Riley Odom and Elmer Odom were charged, tried and convicted of the crime of breaking and entering in the night time and sentenced to not less than two or more than six years in the State Penitentiary. The defendants have appealed from the conviction and sentence.

At the hearing of the appeal in this Court the defendants' counsel did not appear for argument and no brief has been filed herein onbehalf of the defendants.

Upon examination of the record we find an unsigned bill of exception taken during the trial to the court's overruling an objection made by defendants' counsel to the testimony of a State's witness. From the note of testimony in the record it appears that counsel for the State asked the State's witness if he, the State's witness found that this barn or outhouse was broken into. The witness answered, "Yes", after which counsel for the defendants objected to the evidence on the ground that the building is not in accordance with the indictment which reads, "warehouse". The lower court overruled the objection stating at that time that any building might be used as a warehouse whether it was constructed for that purpose or not. The defendants' counsel excepted to the ruling of the court and reserved a bill of exception. We find in the record the formal bill of exception, but it is not signed by the trial judge. Under the provisions of Article 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is necessary for the judge to sign the bill of exception. The Article provides that when the judge refuses to sign the bill of exception he may be coerced by mandamus to sign it. A bill of exception will not be considered by this Court in the absence of a formal bill signed by the judge, in all matters where a bill of exception is required. State v. Shropulas, 164 La. 940, 114 So. 844; State v. Snowden, 174 La. 156, 140 So. 9. From the indictment it appears that the defendant was charged with breaking and entering in the night time the warehouse of Mrs. Catherine Rodriquez with the intent to steal the goods and chattels of...