St. Landry democrat., 1885-11-28
Judgmcnt OH supreuae Court.
State of Louisiana vs.. Solomon williams.

The defendant appears from cOhNlc-
tion of murder and a sentence OF (death)
and invokes relief under motion In
arrest of judgment.
under which he was tried, does not
contain the required averments OF the
crime of murder and is therefore fatal
~ defective.
The defect is alleged to consist in
the omissian of the word wilfullyF in
the descriptionsof the crime of murder.
That portion of the indictment reads.
That the accused "did feloniously and
of bis malice aforethOught kill and
murder Henry Phillips" &c.
Section 1048 of the Revised Statutes
taken from the Act of 1885 which pre-
scribes the mode of charging the crime
Of murder, reads as follows.
ia an indictment for murder or man
slaughter, it shall not be necessary to
set forth the manner in which is the
means by which the death was caused.
1t shall be sufficient in every indictment
for murder to charge that the defen-
dant did feloniOusly willfully and OF his
malice aforethOught kill and murder
the deceased and it shall be sufficient
in every indictment for lnanslaughter
to charge that the defendant did felO-
niously kill and slay the deceased"
The object of the Statute was to car
ry out in special cases the general OBJ
iect of the Statute of 1905, to eliminate
from our criminal pleadings the unne-
cessary prolixity of the pleadings I'M
der the common law. Under the rules
consideration would have been glaring-
ly insufficient for many reasons, both
in the body and in the conclusion of the
instrument.
Under the provisions of the Act of
1856, those defects are eliminated from
discussion and the question is whether
the present indictment is sufficient I'M
der the simplitied form required by the
amending Statute.
In our opinion the indictment does
not comply with the requirements of
the Statute, as simple as they are, and
is therefore defective.
The District Attorney contends that
the word willfullyn is SYNONYMOUS
his malice afOrethought" and that its
meaning is necessarily included in the
other words.
A serious difference of opinion may
exist in that proposition.
But we do not propose to discuss it
nor is its solution necessary TO the case
ON hand. The use of the word is de-
clared to be necessary by the Legisla-
ture and we have no power to strike
out of the Statute. In recent case we
had occasion TO discuss a similar re-
quirement of legislative will and on
that said This court can not accept as
sufficient less than what the law pre-
scribes should be sufficient. Green VS..
Car sc An. so.
The legislative mandate is imperative,
and we cannot disregard it. In our
opinion the law-ruler in presenting the
form contained in the Statute, did not
intend to deal in harmless or useless
tautology, but he sought to convey a
substantial meaning by every word used
on the form prescribed. Courts cannot
safely hold that the legislative intent
is not conveyed by the words used on a
Statute, unless the words or the Ian
guage to be construed, are glaringly |
ambiguous or clearly redundant.
The language of the Statute under
consideration is clear, unambiguous and
uneQuiv0cal, the object OF the Statute
was to eliminate useless utterances
from legal proceeding and the letter
of the prescribed form cannot be dis
carded in order TO seek its spirit
Hence has flowed wise and safe rule |
of construction sanctioned by strong
current of respectable judicial prece-
dents, that in criminal pleadings, when |
crime 10 be charged has been created |
or defined by a Statute, the offence |
should be described in the words of the |
Statute.
TheODly exception applies to cases in
which the Offense is charged i'll different |
words, If such words clearly convey the |
real meaning of the language used in |
the Statute WATERWAYS u. S. criminal
Digest p 342-5, 221 222 p 1896, 1893 $50. |
Wharton American criminal law 399,
400.
But the District Attorney contends,
and We are aware that in the case of
Harris 81 An. 572 the court held differ
emit views and reached u different con-
clusion.
We have fully considered that case
and after mature reflection we have
concluded not to follow il.
We find better doctrines, and closer
obedience to law in the enunciatiOns of
the court in more recent cases, which
clearly although implicitly reverse that
case State vs.. Green SO An. 90, State VS..
Green 80 An. 81.
In justice to the trial Judge in this
case we must state that in his reasons
.over-rnling the defendants motion on
the point at issue, he expressed views
in accordance with our present cnncIu-
sions and that he reluctantly SHAY II his
course under the rulings in the Harris
case, which was in point.
/ In view Of the discrepancy on this
point in our reports we have given to
this subject more than usual care
thought and study, and our conclusions
although we are always reluctant to
disturb the verdict of juries, force MS
to give relief to the acensad in This