Hobson v. Dist. Court of Linn Cnty.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 33250.,33250. |
| Citation | 188 Iowa 1062,177 N.W. 40 |
| Parties | HOBSON v. DISTRICT COURT OF LINN COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Linn County; John T. Moffit, Judge.
Proceedings for certiorari to test the authority of the court to order the imprisonment of a witness, who refused to give testimony before the grand jury upon the ground that the evidence sought was immaterial and not germane to any matter at the time the subject of proper inquiry by that body. Order annulled.F. L. Anderson and Voris & Haas, all of Marion, for plaintiff.
H. K. Lockwood, of Cedar Rapids, for defendants.
After being duly sworn by the foreman as a witness before the grand jury of Linn county, plaintiff declined to answer the following questions:
(1) In what business is your son Leo Hobson now engaged? (2) State to the grand jury where your son Leo is at the present time, and anything you know of his present whereabouts.
She was brought into open court by the grand jury, and, in the presence of all the members thereof and at the request of its foreman, the county attorney informed the court that the witness refused to answer the above questions, and that in the opinion of the grand jury, both interrogatories were important, pertinent, and material to certain matters then under investigation before that body. Nothing was disclosed by the county attorney or grand jury as to the subject or nature of the investigation referred to, and no inquiry was made by the court in relation thereto.
Counsel appeared for plaintiff, and objected to the questions on various grounds, among which were that the evidence sought was immaterial, not pertinent to any matter pending before the grand jury, and did not tend in any way to prove the commission of a criminal offense by Leo Hobson or any other person, or that evidence as to his whereabouts would tend in any way to aid the jury in its investigation of offenses committed within the county of its jurisdiction. The objections were overruled, and the witness directed to answer. Persisting in her refusal to do so, she was by the court ordered committed to the county jail until such time as she signified a willingness to comply with the order of the court.
The grand jury is an appendage or constituent part of the court, exercising certain limited powers and duties under its instructions and direction, but also exercising certain other powers and duties independent and beyond the control of the court. It is its duty to diligently inquire, and true presentment make, of all offenses committed or triable within the county of its jurisdiction, of which it has or can obtain legal evidence.
Its proceedings are conducted secretly and with the assistance of the county attorney, and it may request, and receive, advice from the court. It has no power to compel the attendance of witnesses, or to punish them for refusing to answer questions propounded to them. Subpœnas are issued from the office of the clerk and the attendance of witnesses before it may be enforced by the court in the same way as witnesses served with a subpœna to testify in any matter pending before it. The power to punish a witness for refusing to testify before a grand jury is, by section 4461 of the Code, conferred upon the court. The proceedings in case of the refusal of a witness to testify before that body and the nature of the hearing before the court are set forth in section 5270 of the Code as follows:
“When a witness under examination before the grand jury refuses to testify or to answer a question put to him, it shall proceed with the witness into open court, and the foreman shall then distinctly state to the court the question and the refusal of the witness, and if upon hearing the witness the court shall decide that he is bound to testify or answer the question propounded, he shall inquire of the witness if he persists in his refusal, and, if he does, shall proceed with him as in cases of similar refusal in open court.”
[1][2][3] It will be observed from the provisions of the foregoing section that after the witness has been brought into court the foreman shall then distinctly state the question or questions propounded to the witness, and inform the court of its refusal to answer the same; then “if upon hearing the witness, the court shall decide that he is bound to testify or answer the question propounded, he shall inquire of the witness, if he persists in his refusal, and, if he does, shall proceed with him as in cases of similar refusal in open court.” Technically, the contempt of which the witness is guilty is the violation of the authority and dignity of the court, but committed in the presence of the grand jury. The grand jury is the instrumentality by which evidence of the violation of criminal statutes is obtained and presentment made to the court, and no doubt wide latitude must be allowed it in the exercise of its inquisitorial powers, and its efficiency should not be curbed or circumscribed by technical rules of evidence with which members thereof ordinarily have little or no familiarity. Nevertheless,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ensor
...judicial machinery necessary to cope with the violation of the liquor laws. A grand jury is part of that machinery. Hobson v. District Court, 188 Iowa 1062, 177 N.W. 40. Under the facts of this case, there was a 'proceedings' within the terms of the statute.' Id. at 156, 55 N.W.2d at Theref......
- Hobson v. District Court of Linn County