Case Name: STATE v. PIERRE
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1908-05-11
Citations: 121 La. 465
Docket Number: No. 17,065
Parties: STATE v. PIERRE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 466–468

Head Matter:
(46 South. 574.)
No. 17,065.
STATE v. PIERRE.
(May 11, 1908.)
1. Jury — Appointment oe Jury Commissioners.
Under Act No. 98, p. 124, of 1880, as amended by Act No. 170, p. 211, of 1894, the duty of appointing jury commissioners is vested in the Governor.
2. Same.
Jury commissioners are statute officers, and under article 71 of the Constitution the General Assembly has the right to prescribe the mode of appointment to all offices created by it.
3. Constitutional Law — Executive Powers —Encroachment on Judiciary.
The Governor, making appointments to such offices under the authority conferred upon him so to do by the General Assembly, performs an executive function. The fact that an officer so appointed by him will have to perform judicial duties does not make the Governor’s act in appointing him a judicial act.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans; Frank D. Chretien, Judge.
Jack Pierre was convicted of murder, and appeals.
Affirmed.
William Haywood Luzenberg, for appellant. Walter Guión, Atty. Gen., and James-Porter Parker, Dist. Atty., for the State.

Opinion:
Statement of the Case.
NICHOLLS, J.
The defendant, indicted for murder, was found guilty of the crime- and was sentenced to death. He has appealed. He relies for reversal upon a motion to-quash -the indictment on the ground that:
First. The grand jury finding the indictment in this case was illegally constituted in this, to wit: That said grand jury were-drawn by an unconstitutional body of jury commissioners, having been appointed by the Governor of this state; that the Govern- or is without authority to appoint jury commissioners, it having been decided by the-Supreme Court of this state that the appointment of jury commissioners "is a judicial, not an executive, function."
The court overruled the motion, and this ruling, it is contended, was erroneous and entitles the defendant to a reversal of the-judgment.
Opinion.
The court committed no error in overruling the motion. The appointment of jury commissioners by the Governor was made-under Act No. 9S, p. 124, of 1880, as amended by Act No. 170, p. 211, of 1894. Jury commissioners are officers created by statute.
Article 71 of the Constitution of 1898, referring to the Governor, declares:
"He shall nominate and by and with the consent of the Senate appoint all officers whose offices are established by this Constitution, and whose appointment or elections are not herein otherwise provided for: Provided that the General Assembly shall have the right to prescribe the mode of appointment or election to all offices created by it."
The Governor, making appointment of jury commissioners, acted under authority conferred on him by law, and in so doing exercised executive functions. The fact that the officers whom he appointed may he called on to perform duties connected with the judicial department does not make his •act in appointing them a judicial act.
We are not dealing with an act of the General Assembly authorizing or directing judges to appoint jury commissioners, on the ground that such duty thrown on courts is in contravention of article 96 of the Con•stitution. That question is entirely distinct from the one submitted to us.
We find no legal ground for the reversal of the judgment appealed from. It is therefore affirmed.