Ex parte Baldwin
| Decision Date | 12 October 1886 |
| Citation | 69 Iowa 502,29 N.W. 428 |
| Parties | EX PARTE BALDWIN. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Jefferson district court.
Habeas corpus. The petitioner, Baldwin, was in the custody of the sheriff of Van Buren county. Upon a writ of habeas corpus, issued by the district court of Jefferson county, he was discharged from such custody. The sheriff appeals.Leggett & McKemey, for appellant.
M. A. McCoid and Wilson & Hinkle, for appellee.
1. The facts shown by the abstract before us are these: The petitioner, Baldwin, was indicted by the grand jury of Van Buren county for the murder of Martha Rodabaugh, committed by an abortion produced upon her in Jefferson county, of which she died in Van Buren county. After such indictment, and the issuing of the warrant thereon, but before the arrest of the petitioner, and in the absence of any appearance to this indictment, he was indicted for the same offense by the grand jury of Jefferson county. To this last indictment petitioner appeared, and he was arraigned thereon, and pleaded thereto not guilty, and thereafter was arrested upon the warrant issued upon the indictment found in Van Buren county. The imprisonment under this warrant is the restraint complained of by petitioner, and of which he was relieved by the judgment of the district court in this case.
2. Jurisdiction of the crime for which defendant is indicted rests in either Van Buren or Jefferson county. Code, § 4159. It is plain that the court of both counties cannot exercise jurisdiction by trials and judgments in the case, for the obvious reason that if they may, defendant may be subjected to two trials and two punishments for the same offense. How shall it be determined in which county trial and punishment shall be had? The answer is ready and simple, and discloses a rule which, while securing the punishment of criminals, will assure the accused exemption from two trials and double punishment. It is this: The court first obtaining jurisdiction of the person of the accused shall retain it to the exclusion of the court of the other county, and shall proceed to try the case and administer justice therein. The necessity for the administration of the law on criminal matters without subjecting the accused to the peril of two trials, with the possible result of being twice convicted and punished, demands the recognition of the rule. It is in accord with the familiar rule prevailing everywhere, that where courts have concurrent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clayton
...The opinion in the Milano case relies principally upon Coleman v. State, 83 Miss. 290, 35 So. 937, 64 L.R.A. 807, and Ex parte Baldwin, 69 Iowa 502, 29 N.W. 428. A careful reading of the Baldwin case shows that it is in fact authority only for the proposition that, where two Courts in diffe......
-
State v. Dennington
...The opinion in the Milano case relies principally upon Coleman v. State, 83 Miss. 290, 35 So. 937, 64 L.R.A. 807, and Ex parte Baldwin, 69 Iowa 502, 29 N.W. 428. A careful reading of the Baldwin case shows that it is in fact authority only for the proposition that, where two Courts in diffe......
-
Taylor v. State
...12 Cyc. 197; District of Columbia v. Libby, 9 App. Cas. 321; Mize v. State, 49 Ga. 375; State v. Spayde, 110 726, 80 N.W. 1058, 29 N.W. 428; 40 P. 662, N.C. 529; 9 Tex. 43; 28 F. Cas. No. 16,665. On the foregoing authorities we urge that the circuit court was totally without jurisdiction to......
-
Van Gundy v. O'Kane
...established legal doctrine, recognized in the comity of courts and necessary for an orderly administration of justice. 'In Ex parte Baldwin, 69 Iowa 502, 29 N.W. 428, it was said of this "It is in accord with the familiar rule prevailing everywhere, that where courts have concurrent jurisdi......