Case Name: STATE v. MEHOJOVICH
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1907-02-04
Citations: 118 La. 1013
Docket Number: No. 16,442
Parties: STATE v. MEHOJOVICH.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 1013–1021

Head Matter:
(43 South. 660.)
No. 16,442.
STATE v. MEHOJOVICH.
(February 4, 1907.
Opinion on the Merits March 18, 1907.
Rehearing Denied April 29, 1907.)
1. Criminal Law — Appeal—Record—Transcript — Setting out Evidence.
Subject to his right to maintain good order in his court, the judge cannot dictate what shall be included in, or omitted from, the plead-, ings of the defendant. If the defendant embodies in his motion for new trial a synopsis of the evidence, the judge cannot require that such synopsis be omitted from the transcript of appeal.
2. Rape — Elements op Oppense — Age op Consent.
Under the jurisprudence of the state of Louisiana, the carnal knowledge of a female child under the age of 12 years constitutes the crime of rape. Act No. 115, p. 165, of 1896, fixes the age of consent at l2 years.
[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 42, Rape, § 12.]
3. Criminal Law — Instructions—Privilege op Witness.
A requested charge that the privilege of the accused as a witness does not extend “to such physical circumstances as may exist on defendant’s body or about his person” is a statement of a rule of evidence, which does not concern the jury.
4. Same — Appeal — Harmless Error — Evidence.
Where the prosecution has made no attempt to compel the accused to submit to a second physical examination, the right to do so is a mere abstract question, and the failure of the prosecution to make the proof of the existence of the particular disease more certain worked no prejudice to the defendant.
5. Same — Instructions—Undue Prominence op Particular Matters.
The judge cannot be required to pick out particular circumstances for the consideration of the jury, thus giving them undue prominence and importance.
[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ 1969-1973.]
6. Rape — Evidence.
As in the carnal abuse of female children the want of consent is not an element of the offense, and consent is no defense, the particular rules of evidence, with one exception, applicable to the rape of women, have no application.
7. Criminal Law — Appeal — Review—Questions op Fact.
The Supreme Court is without power in a criminal case to review the verdict of the jury on the facts of the case.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans; Joshua G. Baker, Judge.
Lazar Mehojovich, alias George Morris, was convicted of rape, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Chandler Clement Luzenberg and Henri-ques & Dunn, for appellant. Walter Guión, Atty. Gen., James Porter Parker, Dist. Atty., and Samuel Alexander Montgomery, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the State.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
Four days after an appeal had been allowed in this case the trial court made an order instructing the clerk not to include in the transcript of appeal a certain part of defendant's motion for a new trial. Defendant included in his motion for a new trial a synopsis of the evidence in the case, and it is this synopsis which the trial court thought ought not to appear in the transcript.
Subject to the rule of decorum and the rule of not trifling with the court — In other words, subject to the right of the trial judge to maintain good order in his court — the form and contents of a motion for new trial, or of any pleading, is a matter for the defendant to consider, and not the court. The idea that, apart from the right to maintain good order, the court may dictate what shall be, or what shall not be, included in the pleadings of defendant, is not to be entertained. Anything that may be contrary to this in the case of State ex reí. Haab v. Moise, 104 La. 63, 28 South. 902, is overruled.
A broad distinction is to be observed between the right of defendant to have evidence taken down or transcribed by the official stenographer of the court and his right to frame his pleadings as he thinks fit; in other words, to include in them whatever he deems necessary. In case the trial judge finds that in some respect they do not conform to the facts, he has the privilege of so stating in his per curiam; and the practice of this court is to accept the statement of the judge in case of conflict between it' and that of defendant.
The object of the present proceeding is to have brought up the part of the motion for new trial improperly omitted from the transcript.
Let the writ issue as prayed.