Case Name: STATE v. RAMBO
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1923-02-26
Citations: 153 La. 255
Docket Number: No. 25699
Parties: STATE v. RAMBO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 153
Pages: 255–255

Head Matter:
(95 South. 709)
No. 25699.
STATE v. RAMBO.
(Feb. 26, 1923.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Criminal law <@=^1111(2) — Trial judge’s per curiam conclusive that jurors were sworn.
(Trial judge’s per curiam, in which it is stated that all of the jurors were sworn as required by law, is conclusive against defendant’s contention to the contrary.
■ Appeal from Third Judicial District Court, Parish of Bienville; J. E. Reynolds, Judge.
Fed Rambo was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
Affirme'd.
F. R. Taylor, of Arcadia; for appellant.
A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and W. D. Goff, Dist. Atty., of Arcadia (T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

Opinion:
ROGERS, J.
Appellant was indicted and tried for murder, found guilty of manslaughter, and recommended to the mercy of the court. - He was sentenced to serve not less than one year nor more than three years in the state penitentiary. Whilst three bills of exception were reserved during the progress of the trial, the sole question presented by this appeal is whether or not two of the jurors who sat on the jury were sworn and accepted " to try the case. The contention is effectively disposed of by the per curiam of the trial judge, from which it appears:
"The evidence on the trial of the motion showed that the 12 jurors were all sworn as jurors as required by law, and that the allegation for new trial on this point was without foundation in fact."
The other bills of exception apparently have been abandoned, since they do not appear in the motion for a new trial, nor was there any exception reserved to the overruling of the motion for a new trial itself. No appearance, either by oral argument or by brief, having been made on behalf of appellant in this court, we assume that he has concluded .that there is no merit in this appeal. That is our conclusion.
Judgment affirmed.