Case Name: STATE v. WHITE
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1924-03-08
Citations: 156 La. 770
Docket Number: No. 26382
Parties: STATE v. WHITE.
Judges: O’NIELL, C. J., dissents from the ruling on bill 5.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 770–791

Head Matter:
(101 South. 136)
No. 26382.
STATE v. WHITE.
(March 8, 1924.
On the Merits, June 20, 1924.
Rehearing Denied July 8, 1924.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
1. Criminal law &wkey;636(l) — Minutes must show accused’s presence at every important stage of proceeding.
Minutes of court must show accused’s presence at every important stage of proceeding in trial for felony.
2. Criminal law <§=>1110(9) — Case remanded for opportunity to correct minutes, where same do not show defendant’s presence at trial.
Where copy of court’s minutes in record on appeal does not show defendant’s presence at trial, but it is not improbable that he was in fact present, case will be remanded to give opportunity -to have minutes corrected.
On the Merits.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;l09l (IOi)— Objection to correction of minutes should he subject of bill of exceptions.
Objection to correction of minutes after remand for that purpose should be made subject of a bill of exceptions signed by trial judge, showing objections and rulings of court, with 'other necessary or proper matter.
4. Criminal law <§=>1133 — Motion for rehearing lies only after definitive judgment, not after order temporarily remanding case.
Under rule 14, § 5, a motion for rehearing lies only after a definitive judgment is rendered, and is improper after order temporarily remanding case for correction of minutes.
5. Criminal law' <§=>1110(9) — Decree temporarily remanding case is interlocutory, and immediately effective.
Decree temporarily remanding case for correction of minutes is interlocutory, and effective the moment rendered, though subject to change by court at any time before rendition of final judgment.
6. Criminal law <§=>1110(9) — Trial court held not without authority to correct minutes.
Since a motion for rehearing will not lie after a decree temporarily remanding a case for correction of minutes of trial court, trial court, after such remand, is not required to wait until after lapse- of time within which a motion for rehearing might have been made before proceeding to make corrections sought.
7. Criminal law &wkey;l 110(2) — Trial court held empowered to correct minutes, independent of decree remanding case for correction.
.The trial court, after appeal in a criminal case, has right to correct its minutes, so as to affirmatively show defendant’s presence at all important stages of trial, independently of order of appellate court remanding case for such correction.
8. Criminal law &wkey;l 110(9) — Proceeding to correct minutes of trial court held not collateral attack thereon.
Where copy of minutes of trial court on appeal did not show defendant’s presence at all important stages of trial, and case was remanded for correction, of such minutes', subsequent motion by state for such correction held not unauthorized collateral attack on minutes of court.
9. Criminal law <&wkey; 1110(5) — Correction of minutes of criminal prosecution in subsequent civil term held proper. '
Trial court held to have power to correct its minutes, taken in criminal prosecution, at subsequent civil term.
10. Jury <&wkey;59(2) — Title of jury commissioner to office may not be collaterally attacked.
Title of a jury commissioner, in actual possession of office under color of right, cannot be inquired into collaterally, for purpose of annulling his official acts or acts of commission of which he is a member.
I i. Indictment and information <&wkey;l39 — Motion to quash indictment must be filed before arraignment.
A motion to quash an indictment must be filed before arraignment.
12. Jury t©=>59(,Va) — Suit to remove jury commissioner from office must be instituted by state.
A jury commissioner is an officer, and suit to remove from office must be instituted in name of state, by proper official, rather than individual.
13. Criminal law <&wkey;264 — Motion to postpone arraignment held properly denied.
On motion to postpone arraignment, because of pendency of suit instituted by defendant, questioning a jury commissioner’s right to office, being prosecuted for the purpose of furnishing a foundation for a motion to quash indictment, fact that suit was instituted by defendant, rather than proper officer of state, was such fundamental error as could be noticed by court, and warranted denial of postponement.
14. Jury <&wkey;59(2) — Jury commissioner held at least commissioner de facto.
Jury commissioner, appointed -'Under Act No. 135 of 1898, § 3, and in actual possession of office under color of right, held at least jury commissioner de facto, though he may not have been qualified elector at time of appointment.
15. Grand jury <&wkey;>8 — Validity of selection of grand jurors unaffected by fact that jury commissioner may have been only de facto officer.
Acts of a de facto jury commissioner, including participation in the selection of grand jurors, are valid, and are not rendered invalid, though he be subsequently declared ineligible in suit brought for that purpose.
16. Criminal law <&wkey;586, 1151 — Grant of continuance within court’s discretion; action not disturbed, except for abuse of discretion.
The grant of a continuance is largely within the discretion of the trial court, whose action will not be interfered with, except for abuse of discretion.
17. Criminal law <&wkey;593 — Denial of continuance because of pendency of other cases held not abuse of discretion.
Denial of continuance because of pendency of other cases in which defendant’s counsel was engaged during week of defendant’s trial held not abuse of discretion.
18. Criminal law <@=486 — Homicide <@=262— Questions eliciting evidence relative to size of wounds, as compared with piece of iron not then introduced in evidence, held proper.
In prosecution for murder, questions asked the coroner, eliciting evidence that wounds found on deceased’s body were exactly the width of piece of iron displayed to him and' found near the scene of the crime, held not improper, even though instrument was not introduced in evidence.
19. Criminal law <3=519(7) — Proof of statement by defendant held not error, as involuntary confession.
Proof that defendant, while riding in automobile, shackled and handcuffed, and accompanied by two armed deputy sheriffs, made an incriminatory statement in response to questions, was not inadmissible as an involuntary confession, when there were no threats or inducements.
20. Criminal law @=>l 159(2) — Supreme Court without authority to review sufficiency of evidence.
Supreme Court is without authority to review sufficiency of evidence on which conviction rests.
21. Criminal law @=>968(8) — Questions of fact requiring consideration of evidence not reviewable on motion in arrest of judgment.
Questions of fact requiring consideration of evidence are not reviewable on motion in arrest of judgment; the only defect that can he so raised being one patent on the face of the record.
22. Criminal law @=>968(6) — Pendency of another indictment charging same offense not ground for motion in arrest.
Pendency of another indictment against defendant, charging same offense as one under which he was prosecuted, held not ground for motion in arrest of judgment. ,
23. Indictment and information @=>15(2) — Pendency of two indictments charging same offense no bar to proceeding under either.
The fact that there are two indictments pending against accused at the same time for the same offense is no bar to a proceeding under either.
24. Criminal law @=>874 — Clerical error in verdict held cured by poll of jury.
Error in verdict reading, “We the juror find the defendant guilty as charged. J. O. R., foreman,” held corrected by poll of jury. O’Niell, C. J., dissenting in part.
Appeal from Eleventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Red River; James W. Jones, Jr., Judge.
Amos White was convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 153 La. 300, 95 South. 776.
Hy. W. Bethard, Jr., and S. M. Oagle, both of Coushatta, for appellant.
A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and S. R. Thomas, Dist. Atty., of Coushatta (T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

Opinion:
By the WHOLE COURT.
OVERTON, J.
Defendant, having been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, has appealed.
The copy of the minutes of court, found in the record, of date October 22, 1923, shows that defendant's case was called for trial on that day, that counsel for the state and for the defendant announced ready for trial, and that the trial was proceeded with by impaneling the jury, etc.; but the record fails to show that the accused was present at the trial on the day stated. The copy of the minutes of October 23, 1923, show's that the jury came into open court on that day, which was the day after the case had been submitted to them, and rendered their verdict, and that, after the jury had been polled and the verdict had been ordered filed and recorded, the defendant W'as remanded to jail to await sentence.
The minutes must show the presence-of the accused at every important stage of the proceeding, in a trial for felony. State v. Thomas, 128 La. 813, 55 South. 415; Marr's Criminal Jurisprudence (2d - Ed.) § 275, p. 407. While this is so, yet where it is not improbable that- the accused was, in fact, present at his trial, an opportunity will be given to show, contradictorily with him, that he was present, and, if found to have been so, to have the minutes corrected accordingly. State v. Revells, 31 La. Ann. 387. Therefore, as the copy of the minutes in the record, of date October 22, 1923, on which day defendant was put on his trial, fails to show that he was present, the case will be remanded, under the circumstances, to give the state an opportunity to show whether the defendant was present or not, and, if found to have been present, to have the minutes corrected accordingly.
With respect to the minutes of October 23, 1923, they are probably sufficient to show that the defendant was present when the verdict was rendered, since it appears that after it was returned, and the jury polled, and the verdict ordered filed and recorded the accused was remanded to jail. State v. White, 33 La. Ann. 1221; State v. Askins, 33 La. Ann. 1253. Without questioning the correctness of the ruling in these cases, yet in view of the fact that this court said, with respect to a similar minute entry in the first case cited, that the clerk might have been more explicit in making the entry, and in view of the fact that this case must be remanded to supplement the minutes of the preceding day, we feel that the minutes of the 23d should be made more specific, by showing with greater clearness whether the defendant was present when the verdict was rendered.
For the reasons assigned, without disturbing the verdict or the sentence imposed, it is ordered that this case be remanded temporarily for the purpose of enabling the state to show contradictorily with the defendant whether or not he was present at his trial on October 22, 1923, and, if he was, to have the minutes corrected accordingly, and likewise to have the minutes show with greater clearness whether the defendant was present on the following day, when the verdict was rendered, and that a certified copy of said minutes, when corrected, be returned to this court, with a copy of the proceedings had, to the end that this appeal may be determined.