State ex rel. Noonan v. Sheriff of Hennepin County

• Decision Date: 11 August 1877
• Citation: 24 Minn. 87
• Parties: State of Minnesota ex rel. Kate Noonan v. The Sheriff of Hennepin County
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

24 Minn. 87

State of Minnesota ex rel. Kate Noonan v. The Sheriff of Hennepin County

Supreme Court of Minnesota

August 11, 1877

Habeas corpus issued from this court, and directed to the respondent as the sheriff of Hennepin county.

D. A Secombe and C. D. O'Brien, for relator.

Wm Lochren, for respondent.

Cornell J. Gilfillan, C. J., concurring.

OPINION

Cornell, J.

The return to the writ issued in this case shows the following facts: At the general term of the district court of the fourth judicial district, begun and holden in and for the county of Hennepin, on the eighth day of May, 1877, a bill of indictment was duly found and presented in said court, by the grand jury of said county, against the said relator, for the crime of murder. Being then in custody, under commitment theretofore duly issued upon a preliminary examination for the same offence, the relator was duly arraigned upon the indictment, and in answer thereto personally entered the plea of not guilty. A jury was thereupon afterwards duly impanelled to try the indictment. The trial duly proceeded, until the case was submitted to the jury upon the evidence, under the instructions of the court, on the ninth day of June, when the jury retired, under the charge of a sworn officer, to consider their verdict.

The subsequent proceedings thereafter had, as appears from the entries in the minutes of said court, which are made a part of the return, were as follows, viz.: "June 12, 1877. The jury in this case having up to this time failed to agree, were summoned into open court, and, having answered that they were unable to agree, were discharged from further consideration of the case by order of the court. Defendant's counsel thereupon gave notice of motion to admit to bail, and Saturday next, at two o'clock, was set as the time to hear said motion." "Saturday, June 16, 1877. This day, etc., having been set as the time to hear defendant's motion for admission to bail, defendant (the relator herein) was brought into open court in custody, and counsel for the defendant thereupon moved that the record of the court in relation to the discharge of the jury in the case be amended by adding the following words, to-wit: 'The said proceedings, and the whole of them, were had in the absence of the defendant, and while she was confined and restrained in the jail of Hennepin county;' which motion was denied, without prejudice. Defendant's counsel thereupon gave notice of motion to discharge the prisoner -- First, upon the ground that the defendant was not present when the jury was discharged, (and also upon another ground not necessary to be considered or stated on this hearing.) Saturday next was set as the time to hear said motion. Defendant was thereupon remanded to custody."

"Saturday, June 23, 1877. The defendant in this case having been brought into open court, in custody, the motion to amend the minutes of the court, so as to show that the defendant was not present in court when the jury in the case was discharged, was renewed by defendant's counsel, which said motion was denied by the court, and defendant's counsel excepted to the ruling of the court. Defendant's counsel thereupon moved that the court, by virtue of the authority vested in it, discharge the defendant from custody in furtherance of justice, upon the grounds that the discharge of the jury, under the circumstances under which it was made, operated as an acquittal. Which motion, after argument by counsel, was taken under advisement by the court."

"June 28, 1877. The defendant in this case having been brought into open court, in custody, the court announced its decision upon the motion to discharge the prisoner, as made and argued on Saturday last, June 23d, denying said motion. Defendant's counsel thereupon asked leave to enter the following plea: 'And now comes the defendant, Kate Noonan, in open court, and specially pleads that she has been once put in jeopardy of punishment for the offence charged in the indictment in this action, to-wit: by the trial upon the indictment at the present term of this court;' which matter was taken under advisement by the court. Defendant's counsel entered an objection to the ruling of the court, denying the motion to discharge the prisoner. Defendant was thereupon remanded to custody."

Upon these proceedings the defendant herein now holds the relator in custody, by virtue of the said indictment, and the said orders of the said district court, remanding her to his custody as the sheriff of said county, and the keeper of its jail.

In answer to such return the relator makes no issue upon the truth of the matters therein stated, but seeks to raise the issue that the action of the court in discharging the jury was had in the enforced absence of the defendant in the indictment, and to prove such fact by affidavits; claiming that the court exceeded its authority in so discharging the jury, and that the effect of such improper discharge was the same as a verdict of not guilty, precluding a re-trial of the indictment before another jury.

Conceding the correctness of both these propositions of the relator, viz.: That the court erred in discharging the jury, and that such discharge operated as an acquittal, (concerning which, however, no opinion need be expressed,) the question arises whether further detention of the prisoner on the indictment, by order of the court, after such discharge, became by reason of this error illegal in that sense, that she would be entitled to her absolute discharge on habeas corpus. In other words, is this alleged error cognizable on habeas corpus by this court, the record in this cause not being properly before it for review, so as to authorize the exercise of any revisory power under its appellate jurisdiction.

By section 42, c. 80, Gen. St., which seems to have been literally copied from the New York statute, (2 N.Y. R. S. 2d Ed. p. 471,) a party brought up on a habeas corpus "may deny any of the material facts set forth in the return, or allege any fact to show either that his imprisonment or detention is unlawful, or that he is entitled to his discharge." In other words, the existence of the alleged process, judgment, or proceeding, under which the relator is claimed to be held, may be controverted, its validity may be questioned, the jurisdiction of the court, or officer commanding the imprisonment, to issue the process or render the judgment may be contested, and any ex post facto matter, such as a pardon after conviction and sentence, may also be set up, showing that the alleged cause of imprisonment has become inoperative, and of no further force or effect. As a general rule, deducible from all the authorities to which we have been cited or of which we have any knowledge, these are the only matters, either in the way of denial or avoidance, which the party seeking an absolute discharge from imprisonment on criminal process, in a case like this, can properly raise or put in issue by the answer which the statute allows him to make to the return to the writ. See the valuable and exhaustive note of Mr. Hill to the McLeod Case, 3 Hill 647, et seq., cited with approval in the recent case of People ex rel. Tweed v. Liscomb, 60 N.Y. 559; Hurd on Habeas Corpus, bk. 2, c. 6, § 2, p. 331, et seq.; Petition of Semler, 41 Wis. 517.

In the case before us the existence of the facts stated in the return is not denied, and the validity of the indictment is unquestioned. Neither is it disputed that the district court regularly and lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused, who was properly arraigned and put...