Case Name: STATE v. AUGUSTUS
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1911-11-13
Citations: 129 La. 617
Docket Number: No. 18,917
Parties: STATE v. AUGUSTUS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 617–619

Head Matter:
(56 South. 551.)
No. 18,917.
STATE v. AUGUSTUS.
(Nov. 13, 1911.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1. Criminal Law (§ 1072*) — Appeal—Failure to Fix Return Day.
Act 106 of 1908 imposes upon the district judge, in all cases appealable to the Supreme Court, the duty of fixing the return day, which return day he shall fix at not less than 15 days, nor more than 60 days, from the date of the order, except by consent of parties ; if, then, defendant has moved for an appeal, “returnable according to law,” the failure of the judge to fix a return day in the order granting the appeal is a fault imputable to the judge alone, and appellant cannot be prejudiced thereby.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 1072.*]
On the Merits.
2. Homicide (§ 202*) — Evidence — “Dying Declaration.”
The following facts are sufficient foundation for the admission of a statement as a “dying declaration”: Deceased was disemboweled by a gunshot wound at close range. When the declaration was made, he was lying down, with all of his entrails hanging outside of his body. He said, “I have been shot to death by Isidore for nothing,” and died a few hours after receiving the wound, and before medical aid could be summoned.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. § 429; Dec. Dig. § 202.*
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 3, pp. 2297, 2298.]
3. Criminal Law (§ 1169*) — Harmless Error-Admission of Evidence.
When testimony has been admitted without objection defendant is without interest to complain that the same testimony was admitted, over his objection, at a previous stage of the trial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3137-3143; Dec. Dig. § 1169.*]
4. Criminal Law (§ 715*) — Trial—Reading Document to Jury.
When a witness has, without objection, read to the jury a document and has testified to the accuracy of its contents, the fact that such document has not been formally offered in evidence does not debar the district attorney from reading such document to the jury in his argument.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1666; Dec. Dig. § 715.*]
Appeal from Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge; H. F. Brunot, Judge.
Isidore Augustus was convicted of crime, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Laycock & Beale, for appellant. Walter Guión, Atty. Gen., and Charles A. Holcombe, Dist. Atty. (G. A. Gondran, of counsel), for the State.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
SOMMERVILLE, J.
The Attorney General has moved to dismiss this appeal, on the ground—
"that the motion and order made and granted in and by the district court were not made and granted in accordance with law, as provided by Act 106 of 1908, in that the motion and order failed to fix a return day."
This record discloses no written motion of appeal prepared by counsel for the accused; the motion being disclosed merely by the minute entry, which is as follows:
"On motion of counsel for defendant, it is ordered that said defendant, Isidore Augustus, be granted an appeal from the verdict and sentence in this case, returnable before the Supreme Court of this state according to law." tl
This minute entry clearly shows that defendant's counsel moved for an appeal to the Supreme Court, "returnable according to law." That was all that the law required him to do. Act 106 of 1908 makes it the duty of the judge to—
"fix the return day in all cases, provided that the judge shall fix the return day in the order granting the appeal which shall not be less than fifteen nor more than sixty days from the date of the order, except by consent of parties."
Thus the duty of fixing the return day devolves exclusively upon the judge, and if he fixes a wrong return day, or fixes no return day at all, the fault is the judge's, and is not imputable to the appellant, and he cannot be prejudiced thereby. The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled. State v. Dellwood, 33 La. Ann. 1229; State v. Balize, 38 La. Ann. 542; Hays v. Mayer, 117 La. 1067, 42 South. 505, and the authorities collated in Marr's Criminal Jurisprudence, p. 892, note "b."