Goto v. Lane
Decision Date | 02 June 1924 |
Docket Number | No. 463,463 |
Citation | 44 S.Ct. 525,68 L.Ed. 1070,265 U.S. 393 |
Parties | GOTO et al. v. LANE, High Sheriff of Hawan |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Thomas W. Gregory, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 394-397 intentionally omitted] Mr. Frederick Milverton, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Hawaii refusing a writ of habeas corpus sought by 13 persons in custody under a judgment of conviction in a territorial circuit court on an indictment for an infamous crime against the laws of that territory.
In stating the offense, the indictment used the disjunctive 'or' in several instances where the conjunctive 'and' doubtless would have been used by an attentive draftsman. Had the matter introduced by the disjunctive been omitted in each instance, or had it been introduced by a conjunctive, the indictment plainly would have stated an offense against the statute under which it was drawn. But in the latter of these situations the accusation and the range of admissible proof would have been broader than in the former. The indictment was not assailed in the circuit court because of any uncertainty in the accusation. On the contrary, the defendants and their counsel stipulated in writing with the prosecuting officer that the indictment should be 'considered and understood' as 'reading in the conjunctive instead in the disjunctive,' that it should be taken as 'not uncertain,' and that any defect arising from the use of the disjunctive was waived. The circuit judge indorsed his approval on the stipulation, and it was filed in the cause; but no change was made in the indictment itself. The trial was had thereafter, counsel and the court proceeding as if the disjunctive rightly should be construed and understood as a conjunctive.
After conviction, the petitioners took the case to the Supreme Court of the territory on various exceptions reserved to rulings in the course of the trial. In that court one of their attorneys contended, over the disapproval of another, that the indictment was made so uncertain by the use of the disjunctive that it did not inform the petitioners of the nature and cause of the accusation as required by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, and that the stipulation was void under the Fifth Amendment because the indictment was thereby amended without a resubmission to the grand jury. The Supreme Court, referring to these contentions, said:
And again:
The Supreme Court overruled the exceptions, but did not render a judgment of affirmance, for under the local law that was not admissible in cases brought before the court only on exceptions reserved. Therefore...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth ex rel. Master v. Baldi
... ... exceptional cases, where there is a "peculiar and ... pressing need for it." In Goto v. Lane, 265 ... U.S. 393, 401, 68 L.Ed. 1070, 44 S.Ct. 525, the Supreme Court ... of the United States in an opinion by Justice Van Devanter ... ...
-
Wade v. Mayo
...are now barred to him by limitation, I think tha federal courts should not intervene to correct the error. In Goto v. Lane, 265 U.S. 393, 44 S.Ct. 525, 68 L.Ed. 1070, this Court was asked to consider the issue of whether a group of prisoners, convicted of a crime in the territorial courts o......
- Hardwick v. Doolittle
- Potts v. Zant