Bozovichar v. State, No. 28851

• Docket Nº: No. 28851
• Citation: 103 N.E.2d 680, 230 Ind. 358
• Case Date: February 13, 1952
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 680

103 N.E.2d 680 230 Ind. 358 BOZOVICHAR
v.
STATE No. 28851. Supreme Court of Indiana. Feb. 13, 1952.

[230 Ind. 360] Hunter J. Von Leer, Terre Haute, Homer D. Ingram, Newport, for appellant.

J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., William T. McClain, John Ready O'Connor, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Page 681

DRAPER, Judge.

The appellant Bozovichar was indicted in the Vermillion Circuit Court for murder in the second degree. He later filed a motion in said court, in term time, to be admitted to bail, pursuant to Burns' 1942 Repl. § 9-1035. ¹ In said motion he asserts that the proof of his guilt of said alleged crime is not [230 Ind. 361] evident nor the presumption of such guilt strong. Evidence was heard and by the judgment of the court below he was denied the right to bail. He attempts to appeal.

At the outset the State says the issue is not appealable, and it cites in support of that assertion Burns' 1946 REPL. § 2-3218. ARTICLE 1², § 17 of our State Constitution provides as follows: 'Offenses, other than murder or treason, shall be bailable by sufficient sureties. Murder or treason shall not be bailable, when the proof is evident, or the presumption strong.' Thus, murder is a bailable offense when the proof of guilt is not evident, or the presumption of guilt strong.

The right to give bail before conviction prevents the infliction of punishment prior to an adjudication of guilt and permits the unhampered preparation of a defense. It is a traditional and a cherished right. Unless that right is preserved, the presumption of innocence, secured only after centuries of struggle, will lose its meaning. Stack v. Boyle, 1951, 342 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 1. The denial of the right to give [230 Ind. 362] bail where the proof of guilt is not evident or the presumption of guilt strong would be a deprivation of liberty without due process of law, in violation of the Constitution, which would call for prompt corrective action. Ex parte McDaniel, 1923, 86 Fla. 145, 97 So. 317.

The State takes the position that 'since this is obviously not a final judgment, from its nature, it must be construed as an interlocutory order,' and 'Since the subject matter of this particular appeal does not correspond with any of the cases enumerated above, in Burns' § 2-3218, there is no appealable issue before the court.'

The problem presented seems to divide itself into two parts. First, is the nature of the judgment under consideration such that it is appealable; that is to say, does it have that degree of finality which is necessary to an appealable judgment? Second, if it is in its nature appealable, is an appeal authorized under our law?

The rule that an appeal lies only from a final judgment applies in criminal cases. Ewbanks Ind.Crim.Law, 2nd Ed., § 787, p. 584. 'A final judgment is one which determines the rights of the parties in the suit, or a distinct and definite branch of it, and reserves no further question or direction for future determination.' (Our emphasis.) Home Electric Light & Power Co. v. Globe Tissue Paper Co., 1896, 145 Ind. 174-175, 44 N.E. 191; Ebenezer Old People's Home of Evangelical Church v. Bernhard, 1935, 100 Ind.App. 636, 196 N.E. 129. 'A final judgment is not necessarily the last one in an action. A judgment that is conclusive of any question in a case is final as to that question.' Sharon v. Sharon, 1885, 67 Cal. 185, 196, 7 P. 456, 463, 8 P. 709; Ebenezer Old People's Home v. Bernhard, supra. For [230 Ind. 363] example, an order denying

Page 682

a petition to be made a party to a cause is a 'final judgment' from which an appeal may be taken. Jesswein v. LaSalle State Bank, 1935, 101 Ind.App. 79, 198 N.E. 101, and cases cited. There are cases wherein an issue distinct, entire and complete within itself may be formed; an issue divisible and distinct from all others, the decision of which does not affect the main action. Where an order completely puts an end to the particular issue and fully and finally settles the rights of the parties as to it, then it may be considered as a final judgment and not as a non-appealable interlocutory order. Elliott's Appellate Procedure, § 99, p. 79.

Such is the issue involving the right to give bail in murder cases. The right to give bail in such cases when the proof is not evident or the presumption strong is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution. The issue raised by the motion to admit to bail is entirely independent of the issues to be tried on the indictment itself. It cannot be tried when the case is tried. It must be tried before. The final determination of the right of the accused to be admitted to bail must be speedy to be effective. If the decision is not reviewable before trial and sentence under the indictment it is never reviewable, see O'Brien v. United States, 7 Cir., 1928, 25 F.2d 90, and if the decision of the trial court is erroneous and unjust, and not reviewable, then it results in the denial of a constitutional right of the accused which must remain forever unvindicated. The decision of the issue is not temporary. It is terminal. It determines once and for all the rights of the accused in and concerning a distinct and definite branch of the suit, a decision which is not temporary, but which is a final judgment of the issue of his right to bail. When the right of the accused to bail has been determined, a distinct and definite branch [230 Ind. 364] of the case has been decided. Nothing pertaining to that phase of the case is left for future determination.

In Stack v. Boyle, supra, the petitioners moved to reduce the amount of bail required of them on the ground that the amount of bail as fixed was excessive under the Eighth Amendment. It was there held that the proper procedure for challenging bail as unlawfully fixed was by motion for reduction of bail, and it was further held that an order denying such motion was appealable as a 'final decision' under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291. ³ If an order fixing bail in an unreasonably high amount is a final decision from which an appeal may be prosecuted, it would seem to us that an order denying the right to bail in any amount must likewise be appealable so far as finality is concerned. An accused might somehow succeed in furnishing bail even though the amount as fixed were unreasonably high, but he could obviously not furnish bail if refused the right to do so. We conclude that the decision of the trial court on the issue of bail is a final judgment, appealable as such.

Having reached the conclusion that the judgment under consideration is a final, appealable judgment, we consider whether our law authorizes it to be appealed. As above stated, it was held in Stack v. Boyle, supra, that the matter of the reasonableness of bail as fixed by the trial court was appealable under an act giving the right to appeal 'from all final decisions of the district courts'. Our statute [230 Ind. 365] extends to the defendant the right to appeal 'from any judgment in a criminal action against him.' (emphasis supplied) Burns' 1942 Repl. § 9-2301. ⁴ We can see little, it any, difference between the right to appeal from 'all final

Page 683

decisions' and the right to appeal from 'any judgment in a criminal action'. We conclude that the judgment under consideration is appealable under Burns' 1942 Repl. § 9-2301.

We are further of the opinion that the judgment was appealable independently of statute. In this state the lack of an express statutory provision authorizing an appeal is not fatal to the right to appeal. The right to appeal to this court does not exist only by the grace of the legislative branch. It does not depend upon statute. Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co., 1940, 217 Ind. 93, 26 N.E.2d 399; State ex rel. White v. Hilgemann, Judge, 1941, 218 Ind. 572, 34 N.E.2d 129; Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. v. Lundquist, 1944, 222 Ind. 359, 53 N.E.2d 338; State ex rel. Gannon v. Lake Circuit Court, 1945, 223 Ind. 375, 61 N.E.2d 168; State ex rel. Emmert v. Hamilton Circuit Court, 1945, 223 Ind. 418, 61 N.E.2d 182, 159 A.L.R. 1279; Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Board of Com'rs, etc., 1943, 220 Ind. 604, 45 N.E.2d 491.

The judgment in the court below denies the appellant relief to which, in appropriate circumstances, he would be entitled under our Constitution. The legislature has not attempted to deprive this court of its constitutional appellate jurisdiction to review such a judgment, nor could it successfully do [230 Ind. 366] so, for the...