Case Name: State of Louisiana vs. A. B. French
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1898-05-02
Citations: 50 La. Ann. 461
Docket Number: No. 12,810
Parties: State of Louisiana vs. A. B. French.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 461–466

Head Matter:
No. 12,810.
State of Louisiana vs. A. B. French.
On motion to Dismiss the Appeal.
The State is entitled to an appeal from a ruling of the trial judge on a motion in arrest of judgment, sustaining the motion and setting aside the verdict. The order 'annulling the verdict was in character final, and if erroneous, caused injury.
On the Merits.
The verdict was not responsive to the charge. It was a special verdict. If the jury chooses to designate the crime found by name, it should be defined by name having a meaning in criminal law, or defined in plain words covering all the essential ingredients of the crime.
No judgment can be pronounced on a partial verdict which fails to find the criminal intent, where intent is an essential ingredient of the crime.
In a special or partial verdict of the jury’s selection, all the facts necessary to constitute the crime must be clearly stated. 1'f the jury determines to leave out part of the language charged in the information, they should be particular not to omit essentials to constitute the crime.
A verdict “ Guilty of wounding less than mayhem,” is not responsive to an information charging that the accused has “ feloniously, wilfully and maliciously inflicted a wound less than mayhem,” and is not legal.
The court adheres to the decisions in State vs. Bellard, 50 An. —; and State vs, Hearsey, 50 An. —, overruling contrary views.
A PPEAL from the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans. Moise, J.
M. J. Cunningham, Attorney General, and B. H. Marr, District Attorney (P. A. Simmons, Jr., of Counsel), for Plaintiff, Appellant.
Farrar & Lemle and H. N. Cautier for Defendant, Appellee.
Argued and submitted April 23, 1898.
Opinion handed down May 2, 1898.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Breaux, J.
The State in this case appealed from an order sustaining a motion in arrest of judgment.
The defendant was prosecuted upon an information containing two counts. In one count-he was charged with having stabbed with intent to murder. Iu the other count with having wilfully and maliciously with a dangerous weapon inflicted a wound less than mayhem.
The verdict found was " Guilty of wounding less than mayhem."
In due time the defendant applied for the arrest of the judgment on the ground that the verdict was not responsive to any of the offences charged or counts contained in the information, which, as before stated, the trial court sustained.
Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.
The defendant.in this count moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the court's ruling, sustaining defendant's motion in arrest of judgment was not a final judgment.
The judgment or ruling in our judgment operated prejudicially to the State, if the position'of the prosecution be correct; and, in addition as related to the verdict returned by the jury, it finally disposed of the question involved.
There remained nothing save the sentence. If an error of law has been committed by the trial judge in a matter purely of law, it would, in our view, be prejudicial to the proper administration of justice to let it remain unreversed.
The question is not res nova. It received the attention of this court in the case of State vs. Brabston, 38 An. 144.
The defendant concedes that this decision is not favorable to his motion to dismiss the appeal. That decision does not, in our view, stand alone. The question was considered in State vs. Cason, 20 An. 48, in which it was held that the right of appeal on questions of law, in criminal cases, is not so restricted as to warrant the denial of an appeal to the State from a ruling sustaining a motion in arrest of judgment.
The same question arose in the ease of State vs. Robinson, 37 An. 675. The court in the last cited case reconsidered the decisions and reaffirmed the right, citing State vs. Ellis, 12 An. 390; State vs. Ross, 14 An. 364; State vs. Taylor, 34 An. 978.
There is no question here of an acquittal by the jury. It veas a matter in which the judge alone acted. This distinction has been observed in a number of cases holding that the province of the jury is not infringed upon by the orders and judgment of the court of the first instance, not connected with the facts showing the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The defectiveness vel non of the jury's verdict, presents questions of law, and as such they are reviewable when they come up, as in this case, on a motion in arrest of judgment, setting aside the verdict of a jury.
The judge is without authority to annul a legal verdict by arresting the judgment.
The State, in ease it be attempted, is not without remedy on appeal.
The appeal is, therefore, not dismissed.