Case Name: STATE v. BULLOCK et al. In re BULLOCK et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1914-11-16
Citations: 136 La. 167
Docket Number: No. 20771
Parties: STATE v. BULLOCK et al. In re BULLOCK et al.
Judges: Judgment affirmed.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 167–171

Head Matter:
(66 South. 767)
No. 20771.
STATE v. BULLOCK et al. In re BULLOCK et al.
(Nov. 16, 1914.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 1914.)
(Byllabus by the Court.)
1. Criminal Law @=>996 — Minutes of Proceedings — Correction — Presence of Accused.
Where, in a criminal case, the minutes of one day’s proceedings, as originally written, fail to show the presence of the accused in open court, and they are corrected by order of the judge before being signed in order to show that accused were present, that being the truth, the correction was competent and the accused have no good ground of complaint.
(Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1483, 2529, 2544^-2546; Dec. Dig. @=>996.]
On the Merits.
2. Criminal Law @=>854 — Misconduct of Jury — “Separation”—What Constitutes.
Alleged separation and misconduct on the part of jurors during the trial of a cause must be clearly shown. There is no separation when a juror walks into a corridor for a short distance, if he is still in sight of the deputy in charge.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2039-2047; Dee. Dig. @=> 854.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Separation of Jury.]
3. Criminal Law @=>855 — Misconduct of Jurors — Ground for Setting Aside Verdict.
It is not misconduct sufficient to set aside the verdict if some of the jurors played a game of cards in their room before the case was submitted to them for consideration.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2048-2053; Dec. Dig. @^ 855.]
4. Witnesses @=>68 — Competency — Deputy in Charge of Jury.
A deputy in charge of a jury may be called as a witness for the state on the trial of a case.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 183; Dec. Dig. @=>68.]
5. Criminal Law @=>957 — Impeachment of Verdict — Jurors—Competency as Witness.
Jurors may be examined to show that they were not guilty of the misconduct charged against them.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2392-2395; Dec. Dig. @=> 957.]
6. Criminal Law @=»1030 — Appeal Presentation Below — Necessity.
Errors assigned in the Supreme Court will not serve as a basis for reversing the verdict and sentence appealed from where the alleged errors might have been corrected in the trial court, if they existed, on motion of defendant; and where the alleged errors are based on the failure of the minute clerk to record those things done by the judge during the trial in the discharge of the routine of his official business.
' [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2619-2621, 2632, 2653; Dec. Dig. @=>1030.]
Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Webster; J. N. Sandlin, Judge.
Billy Bullock was convicted of murder and George Bullock of manslaughter, and they appeal.
Affirmed.
L. K. Watkins, W. R. Percy, and H. C. Drew, all of Minden, for appellants. R. G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., and Thomas W. Robertson, Dist. Atty., of Minden (G. A. Gondran, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
MONROE, C. J.
Relators, who are prosecuting this appeal from sentences for a criminal offense, complained that the minutes of the district court as they appear in the transcript show that they were present in open court on June 26th (the second day of the trial), but that as originally written they failed to make that showing, and they obtained an order for certiorari and alternative mandamus directing the clerk to send up a copy of the minutes, as originally written, and show cause why the corrected edition, as appearing in the transcript, should not be stricken out. The clerk makes return to the effect that defendants were actually present in open court upon the occasion mentioned and that the minutes, as originally written, were corrected by order of court before being signed in order to show that fact, which return is unchallenged and meets all the requirements of the ease; the correction of the minutes, under the circumstances and for the purpose stated by the clerk, haying been entirely competent and affording defendants no ground for complaint.
It is, therefore, ordered that the relator's prayer that the alternative mandamus be made peremptory, be denied, and that this proceeding be dismissed.