In re Jay
| Decision Date | 18 January 1905 |
| Citation | 10 Idaho 540,79 P. 202 |
| Parties | IN RE SHIRLEY JAY |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
HABEAS CORPUS-DISCHARGE OF PRISONER-FILING INFORMATION-LOSS OF COMPLAINT-PRESS OF BUSINESS-PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION.
1. Under the provisions of section 8112, Revised Statutes, the court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution dismissed when a person has been held to answer for a public offense where an indictment or information is not found or filed against him at the next term of said court at which term he is held to answer.
2. That the complaint filed with the committing magistrate had been lost and the information of the loss not communicated to the prosecuting attorney until about two weeks before the beginning of the term of court, and press of business on the part of the prosecuting attorney is not a "good cause to the contrary" within the meaning of that term as used in said section.
3. Where the complaint filed by the committing magistrate has been lost, it is not necessary to hold another preliminary examination before an information can be legally filed, and especially is that true where the defendant waived a preliminary examination.
(Syllabus by the court.)
ORIGINAL application for writ of habeas corpus. Granted.
Defendant discharged.
Elder & Whitla, for Petitioner, file no brief.
Thomas H. Wilson, for the State, files no brief.
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition of the applicant shows that on the nineteenth day of April, 1904, the petitioner was committed to the custody of the sheriff of Kootenai county and held to answer to the charge of perjury, and his bail fixed at the sum of $ 5,000 which he was unable to give, and has been confined and restrained of his liberty since said date by the sheriff of Kootenai county; that the first term of the district court in and for said county after the commitment of the petitioner, was commenced on the tenth day of November, 1904, and adjourned of the twelfth day of December, 1904; that no indictment was found and no information was filed in said court against said petitioner charging him with any crime whatever. It appears from the return to said writ filed by the county attorney of said county, that about two weeks prior to the commencement of said term of court he learned that the complaint filed in the justice's court against said defen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Randolph, 6786
-
State v. Shaw
...such a substantial difference in the facts on the question of "good cause", in the case at bar, and the facts on the same question in Re Shirley Jay, supra, that the Jay cannot be said to be in point on that question. The second subdivision of sec. 19-3501, supra, was before this court for ......
-
Jacobson v. Winter
...of when the indictment or information must be filed and when the party charged shall be tried. Ellenwood v. Cramer, supra; In re Jay, 10 Idaho 540, 79 P. 202. Our constitutional provision makes no distinctions as to type of cases in which the right to speedy trial is guaranteed, but provide......
-
Schrom v. Cramer
...be brought to trial at the next term of court after the information is filed in the absence of a continuance for good cause. In re Jay, 10 Idaho 540, 79 P. 202; In re Rash, 64 Idaho 521, 134 P.2d 420; State v. Shaw, 69 Idaho 365, 207 P.2d In the instant case the information was filed at the......