Schwader v. District Court In and For Tenth Judicial Dist.
| Decision Date | 14 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24820,24820 |
| Parties | John Henry SCHWADER also known as John Schwader, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, State of Colorado and the Honorable S. Philip Cabibi, one of the District Judges in and for the Tenth Judicial District, State of Colorado, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, Denver, J. E. Losavio, Jr., Pueblo, for petitioner.
Carl Parlapiano, Dist. Atty., Daniel J. Sears, Deputy Dist. Atty., Pueblo, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding under C.A.R. 21 by which the petitioner, John Henry Schwader, seeks a writ in the nature of prohibition to restrain the respondent District Court from holding a preliminary hearing on the charge of murder first filed in the county court against petitioner until a sanity hearing is held, pursuant to C.R.S.1963, 39--8--6, which prescribes the procedure to be followed when an accused person becomes insane after the crime. C.A.R. 21 states, in part, that 'relief in the nature of prohibition may be sought in the Supreme Court where the district court is proceeding without or in excess of its jurisdiction * * *.' We agree with petitioner that for the district court to proceed with a preliminary hearing under the facts here would be in excess of its jurisdiction and therefore the writ of prohibition is granted thereby rendering absolute the rule previously issued on the respondent.
Petitioner was charged with murder by complaint filed on April 13, 1970 in Pueblo County Court. On April 17, 1970, the district attorney requested a preliminary hearing which was set for April 28, 1970. Counsel for petitioner in a motion supported by a doctor's affidavit filed April 27, 1970 alleged the present insanity of the petitioner and his inability to comprehend the preliminary hearing proceeding. The motion requested that the preliminary hearing date be vacated and that further proceeding be stayed until this sanity issue is resolved pursuant to C.R.S.1963, 39--8--6. After taking this motion under advisement, the county court vacated the preliminary hearing date and certified the matter to the district court for a sanity hearing and for any preliminary hearing which might follow. Thereupon, the district attorney filed a direct information in the district court and the district court ordered that a preliminary hearing be held. Objection to this order was interposed on behalf of the petitioner based on the contention that the district court was proceeding in excess of its jurisdiction because a preliminary hearing could not be held until the question of the petitioner's sanity is first resolved as required by C.R.S.1963, 39--8--6. The district court rejected this contention and ruled that no sanity hearing would be held prior to the preliminary hearing.
Although the petitioner's main argument is that a preliminary hearing can not be held under the facts here until the issue of the petitioner's sanity is first resolved, he does in an ancillary way also challenge the validity of the information filed directly in the district court. It is the petitioner's interpretation of Crim.P. 7(b)(2) and (3) based upon C.R.S.1963, 39--5--1 that the county court under the facts here retains jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of a preliminary hearing and can certify only the question of the petitioner's sanity to the district court.
Although we agree that only the district court may conduct a sanity investigation or hearing, we disagree with the petitioner's interpretation that the county court under the facts here retains jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of a preliminary hearing. Under the special facts of this case, where the district attorney and not the defendant made the request for a preliminary hearing in the county court, we hold that the direct information filed in the district court is valid. See Crim.P. 7(b)(2)(i). The filing of the direct information in this case had the effect of closing out the jurisdiction of the county court. To hold otherwise in this case would result in a situation where the petitioner's case would have to be 'pingponged' between the county court and the district court. The resulting confusion of process and procedure would further dim the concept of the orderly and speedy administration of justice.
The exclusive jurisdiction of the district court to conduct sanity investigations and hearings, with regard to all pleas of insanity, is vested in the district court. 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 39--8--1(4).
The main inquiry is whether petitioner has a right to a hearing in the district court regarding his sanity prior to a preliminary hearing. Petitioner argues that C.R.S.1963, 39--8--6 requires a sanity hearing if petitioner's state of mind is in question at the time of the preliminary hearing.
C.R.S.1963, 39--8--6 is a lengthy section entitled 'Insanity after crime or judgment,' the relevant portions of which are as follows:
'(1) A person charged with the commission of a felony or a misdemeanor Who becomes insane after such commission shall not be tried for the offense while his insanity continues. * * *
(3) * * * The judge of the court in which the criminal charge against the defendant is or has been pending, if he believes the defendant is insane or has a reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davila v. State
...Court of City and County of San Francisco, 15 Cal.3d 221, 124 Cal.Rptr. 57, 539 P.2d 817 (1975); Schwader v. District Court In and For Tenth Judicial Dist., 172 Colo. 474, 474 P.2d 607 (1970); State v. Edmonson, 113 Idaho 230, 743 P.2d 459 (1987); State v. Jones, 233 Kan. 170, 660 P.2d 965 ......
-
Ehrenhaft v. Malcolm Price, Inc.
... ... No. 83-1261 ... District of Columbia Court of Appeals ... Argued June ... by the statute and is thus left to judicial interpretation. Courts of this jurisdiction ... ...
-
People v. Moody
...and the jury trial finally commenced on September 6, 1977. Defendant argues that under this court's decision in Schwader v. District Court, 172 Colo. 474, 474 P.2d 607 (1970), the trial court erred in not sua sponte ordering a second preliminary hearing after defendant was determined to be ......
-
Laurson v. Lind
...process that would arise if a defendant who is not mentally competent were required to participate in critical proceedings. Schwader v. District Court, 474 P.2d 607,As stated, the only appropriate procedure for resolving this issue at this time is via a retrospective competency determinatio......
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...363 P.2d 1059 (1961); Colo. State Council of Carpenters v. District Court, 155 Colo. 54, 392 P.2d 601 (1964); Schwader v. District Court, 172 Colo. 474, 474 P.2d 607 (1970); People ex rel. Heckers v. District Court, 170 Colo. 533, 463 P.2d 310 (1970); People ex rel. Dunbar v. District Court......
-
Section 25 DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
...Maciel v. People, 172 Colo. 8, 469 P.2d 135 (1970); Martinez v. People, 172 Colo. 82, 470 P.2d 26 (1970); Schwader v. District Court, 172 Colo. 474, 474 P.2d 607 (1970); Jorgenson v. People, 174 Colo. 144, 482 P.2d 962 (1971); People v. Fidler, 175 Colo. 90, 485 P.2d 725 (1971); Simms v. Pe......
-
Criminal Law Newsletter
...32 L.Ed.2d 435 (1972). 38. Parks, supra, note 7 at 1033. 39. C.R.S. 1973, § 16-8-103(3) (1978); also see, Schwader v. District Court, 172 Colo. 474, 474 P.2d 607 (1970). 40. C.R.S. 1973, § 16-8-110(1) (1978). 41. C.R.S. 1973, § 16-8-106(5)(e) (1978). 42. C.R.S. 1973, § 16-8-114(3) (1978) 43......
-
Felony Preliminary Hearings in Colorado
...103 (1975); Lucero v. District Court, 532 P.2d 955 (Colo. 1975). 2. Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970); Schwader v. District Court, 474 P.2d 607 (Colo. 1970). 3. See, Crim.P. 5(a)(4), 7(h)(1). The statute requiring preliminary hearings for misdemeanors was repealed last year. CRS § 16-5-......