Case Name: STATE v. GARCIA
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1918-12-02
Citations: 144 La. 435
Docket Number: No. 23222
Parties: STATE v. GARCIA.
Judges: O’NIELL, J., dissents foi* the reason that the defendant, being convicted of murder and condemned to die, was not — alth.ough it was his legal right to be — represented by counsel after he was granted an appeal from the verdict and sentence; no argument nor appearance being made, nor brief filed, in his behalf in the Supreme Court.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 435–437

Head Matter:
(80 South. 648)
(No. 23222.)
STATE v. GARCIA.
(Dec. 2, 1918.
On Application for Rehearing, Jan. 6, 1919.)
(Syllabus by JMitorial Staff.)
1. Cbiminai. Law <&wkey;927(l) — Separation Before Swearing.
Whore the jurors who were to try a murder case had not been sworn, the fact that one of them, with the consent of defendant’s counsel, was allowed to separate from his fellows, and go out of their presence and that of tne court officers into another room of the court building to answer a telephone call, was not good ground for new trial.
O’Niell, J., dissenting in part.
On Application for Rehearing.
2. Criminal Law <&wkey;1132 — Right to be Represented by Counsel — Appeal from: Conviction of Murder — Constitution and Statute.
Const, art. 9, and Rev. St. § 992, do not require that one convicted of murder and sentenced to hang be represented by counsel on his appeal to the Supreme Court, particularly in view of the custom of such court not to appoint counsel, and where defendant has made no request for assignment of counsel to him.
Appeal from Thirteenth. Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides; James Andrew, Judge.
Ed Garcia was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
H. M. Brennan, of Alexandria, for appellant.
A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and T. A. Carter, Dist. Atty., of Alexandria (Vernon A. Coco, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
The accused was convicted .of murder, and sentenced to be hanged.
Before the jury had been completed and before any of the jurors had been sworn, one of the accepted jurors was allowed, with the consent of counsel of accused, to separate from his fellows, and go, out of their presence and that of the court officers, into another room of the court building to answer a telephone call.
As none of the jurors had been sworn (State v. Craighead, 114 La. 84, 38 South. 28), this separation was not good ground for new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
O'NIELL, J., dissents foi* the reason that the defendant, being convicted of murder and condemned to die, was not — alth.ough it was his legal right to be — represented by counsel after he was granted an appeal from the verdict and sentence; no argument nor appearance being made, nor brief filed, in his behalf in the Supreme Court.