State v. Reed

• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: NICHOLLS, C.J.
• Citation: State v. Reed, 49 La.Ann. 704, 21 So. 732 (La. 1897)
• Decision Date: 29 March 1897
• Docket Number: 12,427
• Parties: THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JOHN REED AND ANAIS PARKS

21 So. 732

49 La.Ann. 704

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA v. JOHN REED AND ANAIS PARKS

No. 12,427

Supreme Court of Louisiana

March 29, 1897

Submitted March 20, 1897

APPEAL from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Martin. Voorhies, J.

M. J Cunningham, Attorney General, and James Simon, District Attorney, for Plaintiff, Appellee.

Edward Simon, for Defendants, Appellants.

OPINION

NICHOLLS C.J.

John Reed and Anais Parks were indicted jointly for murder. A severance having been obtained, Reed was tried and found "Guilty as charged." He has appealed from the sentence of death pronounced against him. The indictment charged that "they" (the parties indicted) "in and upon one Jacques Comeau, in the peace of the State then and there being feloniously, wilfully and of their malice aforethought, did make and assault and him, the said Jacques Comeau, feloniously, wilfully and of their malice aforethought then and there kill and murder."

Defendant moved in arrest of judgment for the reasons:

1. Because the juror appointed as foreman of the petit jury did not sign the return of the finding of that body with the addition of the word "foreman," but with the addition of words of a different meaning and spelling, to-wit: the words "for-man," or "forman" if joined together.

2. Because the return of the so-called verdict does not couple the name of the defendant with the words "Guilty as charged," his name merely figuring at the top of the back of the document, disconnected with the said finding.

3. Because nowhere in the indictment is the word "unlawfully" used in connection with the crime charged.

4. Because the minutes of the court do not show that defendant was present when he is said to have pleaded to the indictment.

5. Because the court allowed the former District Attorney to assist the newly appointed District Attorney on the trial and have the same carried on the minutes, which was equivalent to an illegal appointment by the court of an Assistant District Attorney to represent the State, when no one had so requested except the District Attorney.

6. Because the term of court at which the so-called verdict was returned on the 15th of January, 1897, lapsed for the reason that the court having adjourned its session on the 23d of January to the following Monday, the 25th of the same month the presiding judge did not come into court on the 25th to open and adjourn his court to another day, but simply wrote to the sheriff of the parish to adjourn the court on that day from New Iberia, owing to illness. That this course was illegal and unauthorized, said judge having omitted to instruct said sheriff to OPEN said court on said day AND THEN adjourn it, in consequence of which omission said sheriff merely ADJOURNED said court on said day to another day, the 28th of January, 1897, as instructed, without first opening the court, which had been closed by adjournment on the 23d instant. That said proceeding was a bar to any further proceeding in the case, and to the passing of sentence upon the defendant.

The court overruled the motion.

The motion in arrest was correctly overruled. The misspelling of the word "foreman," in leaving out the letter "e," is an insignificant fact. The pronunciation of the word was not changed, and besides, in State vs. Sheppard, 33 An. 1216, it was held that the verdict of the jury is not vitiated by the fact that it is signed by the foreman without the usual addition of "foreman" appended to his signature.

The minutes of January 15th show under the title of the present case that "the jury returned into court and through their foreman, Fred. Schmidt, brought and delivered the following verdict, viz.: 'John Reed guilty as charged,' signed Fred. Schmidt Forman, and that on motion of counsel of the prisoner the court ordered that the jury be polled, which being done each juror answered that the verdict of 'guilty as charged,' was his verdict." The verdict might have been rendered orally, and practically it was so rendered independently of the writing. State vs. Sheppard, 33 An. 1217; State vs. Walters, 15 An. 648; State vs. Ross, 32 An. 854.

The verdict as rendered could have referred to no one other than the party on trial at the time. If there had been any possibility for mistake (which there was not), the writing of the name "John Reed" before the words "guilty as charged" fixed beyond question the identity of the person to whom the verdict referred.

There was no necessity for the word "unlawfully" to appear in the indictment. The latter was drawn in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 1048 of the Revised Statutes.

The minutes show that the accused was present in court and pleaded to the indictment.

There is no good cause for complaint that the former District Attorney should have been permitted, at the request of the new District Attorney to assist the latter in the prosecution of the case. The fact that an entry to that effect was made on the minutes did not make the assisting attorney an "assistant District Attorney" by appointment of the judge.

We find in the record, minutes as of the 25th of January, 1897. They read as follows:

STATE OF LOUISIANA,

PARISH OF ST. MARTIN,

MONDAY, January 25, 1897.

"By virtue and in accordance with the following order viz.:

"'NEW IBERIA, January 25, 1897.

"'Sheriff David Reese, St. Martinsville, La.:

...