In re West

• Decision Date: 12 December 1901
• Citation: 10 N.D. 464,88 N.W. 88
• Parties: In re WEST.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

10 N.D. 464

88 N.W. 88

In re WEST.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Dec. 12, 1901.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Habeas corpus to obtain bail. Construing section 6 of the state constitution, and section 8446, Rev. Codes 1899, held, that in capital cases the accused is entitled to bail before trial, as a matter of absolute right, unless the proof of guilt is evident, or the presumption thereof is great.

2. Held, further, that in other capital cases bail may be granted or withheld as a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised either by the district or the supreme court, or by the judges thereof.

3. Held, further, upon the facts here presented and for reasons stated in the opinion, that bail will not be granted in this case upon this application, either as a strict legal right or as a matter of discretion.

Application of William E. West for writ of habeas corpus. Denied.

Cochrane & Corliss, for petitioner. J. B. Wineman, State's Atty.

WALLIN, C. J.

In this proceeding the petitioner, William E. West, by his attorneys, Messrs. Cochrane & Corliss, has presented to this court a verified petition, asking that a writ of habeas corpus shall issue out of this court, directed to the sheriff of Grand Forks county, commanding him to produce before this court the body of the petitioner, and to show cause by what authority the petitioner is detained without bail, and this to the end that the petitioner be admitted to bail by this court. At the time of the presentation of said petition the state was represented by J. B. Wineman, Esq., state's attorney for Grand Forks county, and the petitioner was represented by his said attorneys, Cochrane & Corliss; whereupon it was stipulated between counsel in open court that the writ need not issue in the first instance, and that the facts and merits of the application should be presented to the court, and heard and determined by the court, upon the application for the writ, and that the evidence and matters of fact, as embodied in the petition for the writ, should be held and considered by the court in all respects as if the same had been embraced in a return made by the sheriff in response to the writ.

The uncontroverted facts, as set out in the petition as grounds for the relief which is sought by the petitioner, are as follows: Upon a warrant of arrest issued by a justice of the peace of Grand Forks county, the petitioner was arrested and brought before said justice of the peace on the 3d day of December, 1901; whereupon, after a preliminary examination of the petitioner was had before said justice of the peace, an order and finding was entered in the docket of said justice of the peace to the effect that the crime of murder had been committed in Grand Forks county, and that there was probable cause to believe that the petitioner was guilty thereof; and said finding and order also embraced the following provision: “It is therefore ordered that the defendant, W. E. West, be held to the district court of Grand Forks county, N. D., to answer to any indictment or information that may be filed against him touching said charge, and be committed to the custody of the sheriff of said county without bail.” Pursuant to said order and finding of the justice of the peace, a warrant of commitment was issued by the justice, under which the sheriff received the petitioner into his custody, and now holds the petitioner as a prisoner. The petition further shows that on the 4th day of December, 1901, the petitioner made application to the district court of the First judicial district, Hon. Charles J. Fisk presiding, for a writ of habeas corpus, to the end that the petitioner might be admitted to bail upon said charge, and a hearing was then had before said district court upon such petition, upon all the evidence adduced and proceedings had before the justice of the peace, and upon no other facts and evidence, said evidence consisting of the testimony adduced upon the part of the state at the preliminary examination, and the same evidence and proceedings, and none other, are embodied in the petition presented to this court. At the hearing had upon the application made to the district court, the petitioner and the state were represented by their said counsel, and after hearing counsel the district court refused to issue the writ, and refused to either admit the petitioner to bail or to fix the amount of his bail, and said court directed that the petitioner be continued in the...