Goldsmith v. Cheney

• Decision Date: 30 April 1970
• Docket Number: No. 3857,3857
• Citation: 468 P.2d 813
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application of David M. Goldsmith for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. David M. GOLDSMITH, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. Lawrence CHENEY, Sheriff of Teton County, Wyoming, Defendant.
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 813

468 P.2d 813

In the Matter of the Application of David M. Goldsmith for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

David M. GOLDSMITH, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. Lawrence CHENEY, Sheriff of Teton County, Wyoming, Defendant.

No. 3857.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 30, 1970.

Daniel P. Svilar, of Boyer & Svilar, Lander, for plaintiff-petitioner.

James E. Barrett, Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, Richard A. Stacy, Frederic C. Reed, Asst. Attys. Gen., Cheyenne, for defendant.

Before GRAY, C. J., and McINTYRE, PARKER, and McEWAN, JJ.

Mr. Justice PARKER delivered the opinion of the court.

David M. Goldsmith, charged jointly with three other defendants under § 6-14, W.S.1957, with joining in common design to kill Larry Olinger and held under a warrant issued by reason of the complaint, has petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus after a similar request had been denied by the trial court of Teton County. Under a stipulation of counsel the relevant facts are that:

Petitioner was arrested in Teton County, January 19, 1968, upon a fugitive warrant issued from Nevada where he, Ted Linn, Glen Lucas, and Robert Lindblad were all charged with having murdered Robert Stucker and Larry Olinger in Nevada on or about August 22, 1967; petitioner was not in the State of Nevada at the time Stucker and Olinger were killed nor had he been there at any time during 1967 prior to the deaths; following his arrest, petitioner was transferred to the Fremont County Jail in Lander; he unsuccessfully filed habeas corpus proceedings before the district court and later in this court; he was thereafter extradited to Nevada; on May 28, 1968, the State of Nevada filed an information in Lyon County District Court against petitioner containing two counts of murder of Robert Stucker and Larry Olinger; on April 5, 1969, Glen Lucas, likewise charged as codefendant with Goldsmith in the two murders, was tried before a jury in Clark County, Nevada, and found not guilty on both counts; the parties hereto agree Robert Stucker and Larry Olinger were killed in the State of Nevada and buried in a grave in Lyon County, Nevada, and that co-defendant Robert Lindblad admitted under oath in the trial against Glen Lucas that he killed either Larry Olinger or Robert Stucker; the case of the State of Nevada against Ted Linn, charging him with first degree murder of Robert Stucker and Larry Olinger, was tried and resulted in a conviction of Linn as charged but thereafter the trial judge granted him a new trial on the ground that the State had failed to furnish certain information ordered by the court to be divulged; for some time he awaited trial but the charges against him have now been dismissed; Goldsmith had been in jail until June 25, 1969, when the prosecutor of Lyon County, Nevada, filed an amended information, charging him with the crime of conspiracy, a gross misdemeanor, simultaneously dismissing the two counts of murder against him, and Goldsmith entered a plea of nolo contendere which was accepted by the district judge, who then released Goldsmith on his own recognizance to appear for sentencing on July 9, 1969; on July 8, 1969, the Nevada Attorney General filed a motion to set aside the amended information and reinstate the charges of murder against Goldsmith but upon argument the motion was denied and the court dismissed the murder charges, accepted the plea of Goldsmith, and committed him to Lyon County Jail for a term of one year-the execution of the sentence being commuted to the time served, Goldsmith having been confined in excess of one year-and he was discharged from custody; and the Nevada laws provided:

'171.070 Conviction or acquittal in another state a bar where jurisdiction is concurrent. When an act charged as a public offense is within the jurisdiction of another state, territory or country, as well as of this state, a conviction or acquittal thereof in the former state is a bar to the prosecution or indictment therefor in this state. (1911 Cr.Prac. § 69; RL § 6919; NCL § 10717.)'

'178.562 * * * 1. An order for the dismissal of the action, as provided in NRS 178.554 and 178.556, shall be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense. * * *'

Petitioner's argued basis for discharge from custody can be summarized as follows:

1. The trial judge failed to set out his reasons for denying the petition as is required by § 1-817, W.S.1957.

2. Petitioner's plea of nolo contendere to the charge of conspiracy in Nevada and the dismissal of the charges against him of murdering Larry Olinger constitute double jeopardy in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; Wyoming must give full faith and credit to the Nevada law which provided that if an order of dismissal is entered in the case it must bar another prosecution for the same offense.

3. The acquittal of Glen Lucas as principal constitutes a good defense for Goldsmith to the charge of being an accessory before the fact.

4. The criminal complaint charges Ted Linn, Glen Lucas, Robert Lindblad, and petitioner as being accessories before the fact of the murder of Larry Olinger in Nevada in violation of § 6-14, W.S.1957. This section does not apply to felonies committed outside the State of Wyoming, hence the Teton County District Court has no jurisdiction to try the case.

We find the first three points argued by petitioner to be without merit for reasons which we will list, but the argument is so tenuous as to warrant no more than cursory mention.

1. Although the record from the trial court shows no statement by the court of reasons for disallowance of the writ of habeas corpus as is mandatory under § 1-817, W.S.1957, ¹ and the failure to provide the reasons is condemned, the matter now before us is not an appeal, and the propriety of the trial court's actions at that time has no bearing on the merit of the petition for habeas corpus.

2. Since petitioner's nolo contendere plea in Nevada related to a charge different than that under which he is held in Wyoming, the double jeopardy cannot be an issue. The mentioned clause of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, being designed to prohibit double jeopardy as well as double punishment, is not properly invoked to bar a second prosecution unless the 'same offense' is involved in both the first and second trial. United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 86 S.Ct. 773, 15 L.Ed.2d 627, 633; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 278(1), p. 719. The same reasoning applies to petitioner's argument that Wyoming must give full faith and credit to the Nevada law relating to dismissal of the charge.

3. Even were we to assume for the purpose of discussion that the acquittal of the principal constitutes a good defense, it would be unnecessary to consider any effect Lucas's being found not guilty of the murder of Larry Olinger by a Nevada court might have upon the status of Goldsmith under the Wyoming charge since Lindblad was charged in Teton County along with petitioner and so far as the record shows he still stands charged with murder in the State of Nevada and his case has had no disposition.

4. From what has been said, it follows that there is only one real issue presented in the case, that is, whether § 6-14, under which petitioner stands charged, applies to felonies committed outside the State of Wyoming. ² Petitioner contends that:

'* * * the language 'any felony' refers only to felonies committed in Wyoming and not in other states. Since Wyoming has no statute incorporating specific references to felonies committed in other states, the Teton County District Court is without jurisdiction to try the case. 'The Wyoming legislature has the power to incorporate, by reference, offenses of other states into the Wyoming penal statutes. * * * Such incorporation does not follow merely because the legislature has the power to do so. The legislature must not only intend to incorporate by reference, but also must use appropriate language evidencing its intent.'

Counsel for petitioner cites no authorities tending to directly substantiate this position but instead seems to argue that because certain other states have worded their accessory statutes to punish the aiding, abetting, etc., of the commission of a felony 'in any state,' 'outside the State,' 'elsewhere,' and so forth, that such wording is essential. Although the circumstances that the legislatures of numerous other states have seen fit to clarify the question of jurisdiction beyond argument in this technical area of the law may be a commentary upon an oversight by our lawmakers, it falls short of convincing us that Wyoming has no jurisdiction to try an accessory before the fact when the commission of the felony is outside its borders. Analysis of the entire problem indicates to the contrary.

The common law of England has been by statute adopted as a rule of decision in this State, § 8-17, W.S.1957; and statutes are to be construed in harmony with existing law and their meaning determined in the light of the common law. Civic Ass'n of Wyoming v. Railway Motor Fuels,...