State ex rel. Sandquist v. Dist. Court of Blue Earth Cnty.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1919
• Docket Number: No. 21552.,21552.
• Citation: 144 Minn. 326,175 N.W. 908
• Parties: STATE ex rel. SANDQUIST v. DISTRICT COURT OF BLUE EARTH COUNTY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

144 Minn. 326

175 N.W. 908

STATE ex rel. SANDQUIST

v.DISTRICT COURT OF BLUE EARTH COUNTY.

No. 21552.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 19, 1919.

Certiorari from District Court, Blue Earth County; W. L. Comstock Judge.

Certiorari by the State of Minnesota, on the relation of E. E. Sandquist, to review a conviction of a contempt of the District Court of Blue Earth County, and a sentence to jail in default of payment of the fine. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

A proceeding instituted to punish the defendant in a criminal case for contempt of court, committed by him in attmpting to induce the complaining witness against him to leave the state and not appear before the grand jury, is one involving a constructive criminal contempt.

The rules of evidence applied in criminal cases should be observed at the hearing in a proceeding in which a person is accused of a criminal contempt, and he cannot be called as a witness for cross-examination under either section 8362 or 8377, Gen. St. 1913, and compelled to testify against himself.

The immunity conferred upon defendants in criminal cases by section 7, art. 1, of the state Constitution, and by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, extends to prosecutions for criminal contempts. Regan & Grogan, of Mankato, for appellant.

C. E. Phillips, of Mankato, and Clifford L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

LEES, C.

Relator was convicted of a contempt of court not committed in the presence of the court, fined $50, and committed to jail for 30 days in default of the payment of the fine. The case is brought here by writ of certiorari.

The court permitted the state to call the relator for cross-examination under the statute and to examine him as a witness against himself. This is assigned as error, and we are of the opinion that it was, and that there must be a reversal on this ground.

Relator was arrested on the complaint of the mother of a girl 17 years old, charging him with the crime of having carnal knowledge of her daughter, A preliminary hearing was had in the municipal court of Mankato, and relator was committed for trial in the district court of Blue Earth county. The mother and daughter were notified by the county attorney that they would be required as witnesses before the grand jury and were requested not to leave the state. Later on, A. H. Lillygren and Lydia Franklin interviewed the mother and daughter, and endeavored to persuade them to drop the criminal prosecution against relator, informing them that, if they would do so, he would furnish them with railroad tickets for their return to their former home in Mississippi and pay them $200. Lillygren produced a typewritten document previously prepared, and asked the daughter to sign it, and she did so. It contained a statement that the testimony she had given against relator at the preliminary hearing was not true.

These facts were set forth in the affidavit of the county attorney of Blue Earth county, on which the district court of that county ordered relator and Lillygren and Mrs. Franklin to show cause why each of them should not be adjudged guilty of contempt of court. The sheriff brought them before the court, where they were represented by counsel, who contended that they were charged with a criminal contempt, and that the state had the burden of proving their guilt. The court ruled that it was incumbent upon the accused to purge themselves of contempt, and, in response to an inquiry made by counsel, said:

‘This court finds a justification in the moving papers for the citation, and, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, shall find them guilty of the contempt of process of the law.’

The accused then offered their own affidavits in evidence, whereupon the following colloquy occurred between the court and counsel:

‘Court: Have the respondents anything further to offer?

‘Mr. Regan: We would like to have the examination of the complaining witnesses in the case.

‘Court: I do not understand your suggestion. What have they to offer?

‘Mr. Regan: We are asking for the state to produce whatever testimony they have got, and, if it is necessary, then we have testimony to submit to the court on this matter.

‘Court: Call respondents for cross-examination, Mr. Phillips.’

The county attorney then called each of the respondents for cross-examination under the statute. When Lillygren was called, this occurred:

‘Mr. Regan: We, at this time, wish to claim our proper exemptions under the statute, and object to this witness being compelled to testify against himself.

‘Court: A while ago you were invoking the statute that you argued required the court to examine these parties, and you asked for an examination of these parties.

‘Mr. Regan: That is true, your honor; * * * that is the reason I say we have a right to hear any testimony that is against us before we are compelled ourselves to take the stand in our own behalf. Defendant cannot be presumed, in any case, of being guilty, and be compelled to prove himself innocent.

‘Court: The fault, Mr. Regan, is that your mind is running along the lines of criminal contempt and within the rules of trial. These parties are not charged with criminal contempt. This is not a trial. This is a summary proceeding, in which the court is bound, under the statute, to examine the parties, and this examination is being conducted along the lines called for in that procedure.

‘Mr. Regan: Exception.’

Relator was next called for cross-examination under the statute....