No. 32182. Precedential Affirmed Processed

State v. Milam

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed February 27, 1933 · 147 So. 22

Cited by

State v. Mitchell 268 So. 2d 226 La. 1972
Succession of Roth 87 So. 2d 719 La. 1956
Anagnosti v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. 52 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1951
Pittman v. Lilly 1 So. 2d 88 La. 1941
Succession of Uthoff 200 So. 290 La. 1941
Vinoy Park Hotel Co. v. Fumigation Service, Inc. 151 So. 639 La. 1933
Irish Levy Electric Co. v. Moss 148 So. 708 La. 1933
Harnischfeger Sales Corporation v. Sternberg Co. 148 So. 440 La. 1933
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Dampskibs Aktieselskabet Mai 147 So. 26 La. 1933

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Johnson 46 La. Ann. 5
14 So. 295 not in our corpus
State v. Flanakin 128 La. 455
City of Crowley v. Brande 54 So. 940
State v. Hart 133 La. 5
State v. Leftwich 46 La. Ann. 1194
15 So. 411 not in our corpus

Opinion text

ST. PAUL, Justice. The defendant was tried for murder and convicted of manslaughter. He complained, in arrest, of judgment, that at the time of his motion the only verdict appearing on the minutes was the simple word *881 “Manslaughter,” which verdict was technically not responsive to the indictment. State v. Johnson, 46 La. Ann. 5 , 14 So. 295 ; State v. Flanakin, 128 La. 455 , 54 So. 940 . The trial judge, having observed this, asked the jury if it was their intention to find the accused guilty of manslaughter; whereupon thé jury, through its foreman, answered that it was their purpose to find the defendant guilty of manslaughter. By some inadvertence the clerk entered on the minutes, as the verdict (orally) announced by the jury, merely the single word, “Manslaughter,” entirely omitting all reference to the judge’s question and the response of the jnry. When the judge’s attention was called to this by the motion in arrest, he at once ordered the minutes corrected to accord with the facts which were within his own knowledge. And it is of this correction of the minutes that the defendant now complains. His complaint is without merit. “Minutes of courts may be corrected at any time to supply an omission, if the facts are within the personal knowledge of the judge, or so well proved as not to allow of serious dispute.” State v. Hart, 133 La. 5 , 62 So. 161, 162 , and authorities cited. The. right of the court to order an amendment of the minutes so as to conform to the facts and show his performance of an official duty is beyond question; and the statement of the judge of a fact within his own knowledge pertaining to his official duty is conclusive. State v. Leftwich, 46 La. Ann. 1194 , 15 So. 411 . It was the official and mandatory duty of the judge to refuse to receive a verdict, not responsive, and direct that a responsive verdict be returned. Code Cr. Proc. art. 402. Decree. For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed. O’NIELL, O. J., dissents.