State v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 13 April 1909
• Docket Number: 1991
• Citation: 35 Utah 496,101 P. 385
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: THE STATE OF UTAH, Respondent, v. HANS C. ANDERSON, Appellant

101 P. 385

35 Utah 496

THE STATE OF UTAH, Respondent, v. HANS C. ANDERSON, Appellant

No. 1991

Supreme Court of Utah

April 13, 1909

APPEAL from District Court, Seventh District; Hon. Ferdinand Erickson, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of perjury and appealed.

AFFIRMED.

Jacob Johnson for appellant.

A. R Barnes, Attorney-General, for respondent.

McCARTY J. STRAUP, C. J., and FRICK, J., concur.

OPINION

McCARTY, J.

The defendant was convicted, in the district court of Sanpete county, of the crime of perjury, and from the judgment of conviction he prosecutes this appeal.

It appears from the judgment roll, upon which alone the appeal is taken, that a complaint was filed with the justice of the peace of Manti precinct, Sanpete county, sitting as a committing magistrate, in which the defendant was charged with the crime of which he stands convicted. The assignment of error upon which defendant mainly relies for a reversal of the case involves the question as to whether or not the complaint was sufficient to authorize the issuance of the warrant on which he was arrested. It is alleged in the complaint: "That the said defendant, Hans C. Anderson heretofore, on the 16th day of January, 1908, within Sanpete county, State of Utah, did commit the crime of perjury, as follows: The said Hans C. Anderson then and there did wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, wickedly, and corruptly and falsely testify, depose and swear, in substance and effect, as follows." The complaint, after reciting the matters to which it is alleged the defendant falsely testified--the alleged false statements made by him--charges that "the said defendant, Hans C. Anderson, then and there did so wilfully, unlawfully, wickedly, corruptly, feloniously, and falsely testify, depose, and swear, before the district court of the Seventh Judicial District, sitting in and for Sanpete county, State of Utah, then and there in session, and engaged in the investigation and trial of a case wherein Nettie Anderson was plaintiff, and the said Hans C. Anderson was defendant, in which case the issues were as to whether the defendant had cruelly treated the plaintiff to the extent of causing great bodily injury, or great mental distress to plaintiff, while the relation of husband and wife existed between plaintiff and defendant. And the said Hans C. Anderson had, then and there, administered to him by O. D. Eliason, the duly elected, qualified, and acting clerk of said Seventh Judicial District Court of the State of Utah sitting in and for Sanpete county, the said O. D. Eliason being then and there duly authorized and qualified to administer the same, on oath then and there to speak the truth.... in said matter and cause under investigation and upon trial in said district court. Whereupon it then and there became and was a question of fact, material in the trial of said issue in the said district court, whether the said Hans C. Anderson had, at any time during the married life of him, the said Hans C. Anderson, with Nettie Anderson, his wife, cruelly treated her, the said Nettie Anderson, to the extent of causing her, the said Nettie Anderson, great bodily injury, or great mental distress; whether he, the said Hans C. Anderson, had, during the year 1907, or at any time, threatened the life of his wife." Then follows a recapitulation of the alleged false and perjured statements of the defendant, which consisted mainly of his denials of having, on certain occasions therein mentioned, cruelly treated his wife. The complaint then concludes as follows: "All and each of the matters testified to by defendant, as hereinbefore set out, then and there became and were questions and facts material in the trial of the said issues in the said district court; that the said statements, matters, and things so sworn to by the said defendant, Hans C. Anderson, in the said district court, in the said cause wherein Nettie Anderson was plaintiff, and said Hans C. Anderson was defendant, are utterly and wholly false, contrary to the form of the statute," etc.

The defendant, on being arraigned before the magistrate, waived examination, the state consenting thereto, and was bound over to answer to the district court. An information was filed in the district court in which some of the assignments of perjury charged in the complaint filed with the magistrate were charged and alleged. To the information defendant interposed a demurrer, which was sustained. The district attorney thereupon, by order of the court, filed a new information. Defendant then filed a motion to quash and set aside the new information, on the ground that "he has had no preliminary examination upon the charge attempted to be stated in said alleged information,... nor has he waived such preliminary examination,... and because the defendant herein has not been held to answer to the charge contained in said new information." The order of the court overruling this motion is assigned as error. It is contended, on behalf of defendant, that the complaint filed with the committing magistrate did not state a public offense, and hence all subsequent proceedings, including the filing of the new information, were without authority of law, and therefore void. We do not understand the law to be that a complaint, which is made the basis of a preliminary hearing before a magistrate only, must be drawn with the same precision and technical accuracy that is required in the drawing of an indictment or information upon which a party charged with a felony is finally brought to trial, in a court having jurisdiction to hear and determine the case and to render final judgment thereon. One purpose of these preliminary proceedings is to enable the defendant to inform himself of the nature of the accusation made against him, to be confronted, with and to cross-examine, the witnesses testifying on behalf of the state, and thereby given an opportunity to fully inform himself of the facts and circumstances upon which the state relies to sustain the charge, and be prepared to meet it when he is brought to trial. (State v. Jensen, 34 Utah 166, 96 P. 1085.) And he may, if he so desires and is able to, introduce evidence which tends to exonerate him, or to explain away the charge. When these rights have been secured to the accused and he has availed himself of the opportunities thus afforded him, or has, the state consenting thereto, waived a preliminary examination, and is bound over to answer to the district court, the proceedings will not be set aside and annulled because the complaint is informal. Section 4604, Comp. Laws 1907, provides that: "A complaint is a statement in writing made to a court or magistrate, that a person has been guilty of some designated offense." And section 4610 provides, so far as material here, that: "The complaint must state: (1) The name of the accused if known;... (2) the county in which the offense was committed; (3) the general name of the crime or public offense; (4) the acts or...