Case Name: STATE v. SISEMORE et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1922-01-02
Citations: 151 La. 675
Docket Number: No. 24644
Parties: STATE v. SISEMORE et al.
Judges: By the WHOLE COURT as then constituted.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 151
Pages: 675–683

Head Matter:
(92 South. 274)
No. 24644.
STATE v. SISEMORE et al.
(Jan. 2, 1922.
On the Merits, May 15, 1922.)
(Syllabus Toy Editorial Staff.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;>!IIO(8) — Clerk’s return to certiorari requiring correction of record held insufficient.
Where a writ of certiorari commanded the clerk to amend the transcript by transcribing and returning as part of the record that part of the minute entry relative to the time when the appeal was asked for and granted, a return, merely stating the clerk’s conclusion that the minutes in the transcript were erroneous, and that in fact the original minute record showed the appeal was taken after sentence, was insufficient.
On the Merits.
2. Courts <&wkey;64(4) — Calling of special term unnecessary when case tried within time of court’s continuous session.
As, under the Constitution, district courts in country parishes are required to be in session continuously for ten months of the year, no call for a special term was needed where a case was tried during such session.
3. Jury (&wkey;70(6) — Notice to defendant’s attorney of drawing of special venire not required.
No law requires attorneys for accused persons to be notified that a special venire is to be drawn.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;589(l) — That defendants strangers and in jail no ground for continuance.
That the accused-were strangers and in jail was no ground for a continuance.
5. Homicide <S&wkey;l75 — Evidence that decedent had previously been wounded properly excluded.
Where deceased was in good health when shot by defendants with a pistol and died a few hours later, and a_ physician testified that his death was caused by internal hemorrhage from the wound, evidence that he had previously been wounded was properly excluded; he having recovered from the previous wound.
6. Homicide &wkey;>!88(7) — Evidence in murder case properly admitted to rebut evidence that the deceased waylaid defendant.
Where defendants claimed that deceased, who was loading eordwood some distance from a road and had a pistol on his person was there to waylay them, evidence that he left his home a few minutes previous to get a load of cord-wood, and that he habitually carried the pistol for defense against other persons by whom he feared an attack, was proper.
7. Criminal law &wkey;>683(!)— Deceased’s brother properly permitted in rebuttal to give his version of the difficulty to which defendants testified.
Where defendants testified to a difficulty one of them had with a brother of the decedent, the brother in rebuttal was properly allowed to give his version of the matter.
8. Criminal law <&wkey;>il 144(14) — Jury presumed to have understood instruction.
In the absence of any request on the part of the jury that th& <court repeat an instruction, it must be assumed that it was understood by them, notwithstanding the claim that their attention was distracted by the act of state’s counsel in remaining standing and protesting while it was being given.
9. Criminal law <&wkey;723(3)- — Appeal .to jury to inflict extreme penalty to stop crime wave not objectionable.
There was nothing objectionable in the prosecuting attorney’s appeal to the jury in his argument to inflict the extreme penalty for homicide as the only way to stop the wave of crime said by him to be sweeping over the land, or in his statements that in England the laws were enforced and there was little crime committed there, and in New York the authorities compromised with crime and crime was rampant.
10. Criminal law <&wkey;il 156(4) — Motion for new trial addressed to court’s discretion, which will not be disturbed except for clear error or abuse of discretion.
The grant or refusal of a new trial, asked for on the ground that a juror had answered falsely on his voir dire that he had- not formed or expressed an opinion, is largely within the trial judge’s discretion on conflicting affidavits, and his discretion will not be overridden except for clear error or abuse -of discretion.
II. Criminal law <&wkey;665(6) — Violation of rule by witness within trial court’s discretion.
Where the witnesses have been put under the rule, the fact that one of them violated it not knowing of it was a matter entirely within the trial judge’s discretion.
Appeal from Eighth Judicial District Court, Parish of Catahoula; S. R. Holstein, Judge.
Jesse Richardson Sisemore and another were convicted of manslaughter, and they appeal.
Affirmed.
Perrin & Perrin, of Jena, D. W. Gibson, of Harrisonburg, and L. B. Duke, of Jones-ville, for appellants.
A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., E. B. Moore, Dist. Atty., of Winnsboro (R. M, Taliaferro, of Harrisonburg, S. L. Richey, of Alexandria, and T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
By the WHOLE COURT as then constituted.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
OVERTON, J.
The defendants were indicted and tried for murder; were convicted of manslaughter; and now appeal to this court.
The state has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no appeal was moved for, nor granted, after sentence.
The defendants have filed an answer to this motion averring, if the transcript shows that the appeal was granted prior to sentence, then that it is incorrect in this respect, and have asked, in that event, that it be sent to the clerk of the district court for the parish of Catahoula, and that the clerk be ordered to correct it, so as to make it conform to the truth.
Thereafter defendants moved this court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted. The motion for the writ sets forth that the transcript shows that the appeal was taken before sentence; whereas, the minutes show that it was taken after sentence. The writ was granted. It commanded the clerk to amend the transcript of appeal, if the same should be found to be incorrect, by transcribing and returning to this court, as part of the record, that part of the minute entry made in this case relative to the time when said appeal was 'asked for and granted, and that he make return forthwith.
The clerk evidently misunderstood the writ, and instead of filing with his return a certified copy of the minute entry, showing when the appeal was granted, filed a return stating his conclusion that the minutes in the transcript are erroneous, in so far as they show that the appeal was taken before sentence; and then the clerk adds:
"In truth and fact, the original minute record of this office shows that said appeal was taken after sentence."
The state filed a motion to strike this return from the record, for the reason that it is "no part of the transcript, inasmuch as no certified copy of what the clerk claims to be the original minutes has been filed in this case."
Then the state avers that the return is incorrect; that the original minute entries, up to, and until after, November 26, 1921, were the same as the copy found in the transcript, and that, without any authority whatever, "some one merely struck out the word, 'before,' and inserted the word, 'after,' in the minute entry of March the 26th."
The above motion is supported by the oath of the district attorney, as well as by that of one of the assistant counsel for the state.
The return of the clerk is not sufficient. Bfesides, it has been suggested that the minutes have been altered without authority. Therefore, in order to gain possession of all the facts necessary to properly dispose of the motion to dismiss, we have concluded to remand the case, without disturbing the judgment that has been rendered, or the sentence that has been imposed, for the limited purposes to be stated in the decree.
.Therefore, without disturbing said judgment or sentence or the appeal taken, it is ordered that this case be remanded to the lower court to enable the state to show contradictorily with the defendants whether said minute entry of March 26, 1921, showing the granting of the appeal herein, has been altered, and, if so, whether without authority; and also to enable the defendants to show in said proceeding what error, if any, exists in said minute entry; and, if error should be found by .the court to exist in said entry, to the end that the court may correct the error, so as to make said entry conform to the truth; and it is further ordered that the evidence taken in said proceeding be reduced to writing, an'd that transcripts of the same be returned to this court; and, in any event, that three certified copies of said entry as it existed at the time the certified copy thereof contained in the transcript was made, and three certified copies of the entry as corrected by the court, if the court should find error in the original entry, and correct the same, together with copies of the ruling of the court in said proceeding, be forwarded to this court, as part of the transcript herein, by the court below; and this, to the end that the motion to dismiss the appeal may be determined.