State v. Corteau

• Decision Date: 11 December 1936
• Docket Number: 30,992
• Citation: State v. Corteau, 198 Minn. 433, 270 N.W. 144 (Minn. 1936)
• Parties: STATE v. ELMER J. CORTEAU
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

270 N.W. 144

198 Minn. 433

STATE v. ELMER J. CORTEAU

No. 30,992

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 11, 1936

The district court for Hennepin county, Levi M. Hall, Judge denied the motion of defendant to set aside an information filed against him in said court charging him with the crime of grand larceny in the second degree, and certified to this court the question raised by the motion. Order reversed and information set aside.

SYLLABUS

Indictment and information -- setting aside -- grounds -- appearance of accused before grand jury.

Where after a complaint is filed against the defendant in the municipal court charging him with a felony and and a warrant is issued thereon, but before hearing thereon he is subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury and compelled to give evidence as to the facts upon which said charge is based, his constitutional right not to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself is violated. Defendant is entitled to have an information thereafter filed against him on such charge, by the county attorney in the district court, set aside.

Harry H. Peterson, Attorney General, Roy C. Frank, Assistant Attorney General, Ed J. Goff, County Attorney, and H. T. Van Lear, Assistant County Attorney, for the State.

Jay W. Smith and T. M. Thomson, for defendant.

OPINION

I. M. OLSEN, JUSTICE.

The defendant moved, in the district court, for an order to set aside the information filed against him in that court charging him with the crime of grand larceny in the second degree. The district court denied the motion, but certified that the question of law raised by said motion was so doubtful as to require the decision of this court, and thereupon certified the matter to this court.

The record shows that on July 3, 1935, Anna Andrychowicz filed in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis a complaint charging this defendant with the crime of grand larceny in the second degree. The record from the municipal court states that at that time a warrant was issued and returned. Nothing further appears to have been done. Apparently the defendant was not brought into court at that time. The next thing that appears in the matter is that on February 7, 1936, the defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury and was examined in reference to the charge against him and other matters, as is hereinafter more fully stated. On February 28, 1936, defendant appeared in the municipal court for examination. Bail was fixed and furnished. There were some continuances of the hearing, which was finally set for March 18, 1936. On March 18 the examination was held, and the municipal court on the next day, March 19, bound the defendant over to the district court. On that same day the county attorney filed an information against the defendant in the district court charging him with the crime stated. Defendant was brought into the district court and arraigned on March 20, 1936. On April 3, 1936, defendant made the motion to set aside the information filed, on the ground that he had been compelled by subpoena to appear before the grand jury of Hennepin county on the 7th and 11th days of February, 1936, and had there been compelled to give testimony against himself in relation to the crime charged. The order denying this motion is the one coming here for review.

By affidavit in his motion to set aside the information the defendant stated in substance: That on the 7th day of February, 1936, he was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury of Hennepin county, then in session, and to bring with him the books and records of the Mayor's Greater Minneapolis Committee, of which defendant was then executive secretary; that he should report to Ed J. Goff, county attorney, at his office at two p.m. that day; that he did so report, bringing with him said books and records; that he then appeared before the grand jury; that after being examined as to the work and activities of said committee he was then questioned by the foreman of the grand jury as to his dealings with Anna Andrychowicz, the complainant in this case; that he protested that he had not been subpoenaed to appear in regard to that matter, but was informed...