State v. Coursolle

• Decision Date: 29 May 1959
• Docket Number: No. 37448,37448
• Parties: , 75 A.L.R.2d 755 STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Ernest COURSOLLE, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 472

97 N.W.2d 472

255 Minn. 384, 75 A.L.R.2d 755

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Ernest COURSOLLE, Appellant.

No. 37448.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 29, 1959 On Motion for an Order for Payment of Costs of Printing Appellant's Brief July 10, 1959.

Syllabus by the Court

As an incident to a fair trial a person being tried for a criminal offense has a right to make his appearance and that of his witnesses free from shackles although it is within the discretion of the trial court to have a person shackled when it is manifest that such a precaution is necessary to prevent violence or escape. In exercising this discretion the court must have some reason based on the conduct of the prisoner at the time of the trial to authorize so important a right to be forfeited. This rule also applies to witnesses for the defendant brought into court from penal institutions under a writ of habeas corpus.

In the conduct of a trial the prosecuting attorney as well as the court has the duty to see that the accused has a fair trial and there must be no conduct that will inflame the passion or prejudice of the jury against the accused.

Held under the record here that there was not sufficient reason for keeping defendant's witnesses manacled during his trial.

Z. L. Begin, Marshall, C. C. Crumlett, Lake Benton, William M. Sutor, Springfield, for appellant.

Miles Lord, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Houston, Sol. Gen., St. Paul, Robert M. Baker, County Atty., Granite Falls, for respondent.

FRANK T. GALLAGHER, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction in a criminal case in which defendant was charged in an information with having committed an act of rape upon an 18-year-old woman early in the morning of May 7, 1956. It will serve no useful purpose to set out in detail the sordid contradictory evidence in connection with this case. Suffice it to say at this point that the jury found defendant guilty and he was forthwith sentenced to the State prison at Stillwater.

Defendant has made several claims in connection with his appeal and has listed 148 assignments of error. It would be well-nigh impossible for us to separately refer to that many assignments without making this opinion too voluminous, so for the purpose of our decision we shall consider his claim that he was prejudiced, and his constitutional rights violated, by being exhibited in public at the preliminary examination bound, manacled, and chained, in violation of M.S.A. § 631.47, and by his witnesses being handcuffed, manacled, and chained, and exhibited to the jury in that condition during his trial.

It appears from the procedural history in the defendant's brief that the criminal complaint filed May 8, 1956, charged defendant with having committed the crime of rape on May 7, 1956. The defendant was arrested the evening of May 8, 1956, and kept in the county jail at Granite Falls until May 11, when he was removed to the jail at Montevideo because, according to the brief, 'the sheriff feared for his safety.' On June 11, 1956, a preliminary hearing was held before the municipal judge for Edward McLafferty and the defendant, both men being charged with the same offense. According to the defendant both men were kept handcuffed during that hearing, in plain view of the public, the handcuffs being attached to a chain attached to a belt around the abdomen.

The state in its brief contends that this does not appear in the evidence and that in any event such claimed fact is not of interest here as this appeal only reviews proceedings in the district court.

Both men were bound over to district court. An information signed by the county attorney was filed September 10, 1956, and defendant pleaded not guilty.

It also appears from appellant's brief that at the opening of the September term of court in 1956 in Yellow Medicine County a motion was made to quash the information because of the violation of defendant's constitutional rights, and a motion was made for a change of venue on the ground that a fair and impartial trial could not be held in that county, both of which motions were denied.

On May 25, 1956, one Paul Collins, also involved in the affairs of May 6 and 7 out of which the rape charges were made against McLafferty and the defendant, pleaded guilty to a charge of rape and was sentenced to a penal institution. The McLafferty case was tried first, with this defendant as a witness at that trial. Neither Collins nor McLafferty testified at the trial of McLafferty. McLafferty was convicted and the state moved forthwith for the trial of defendant. The latter moved for a continuance to the next term and renewed his motion for a change of venue. His motions were denied and the case was set for trial and a special venire of jurors was called over the objections of defense.

On the day set for the trial and before selection of the jury on September 19, 1956, the defense interposed an objection to the entire panel on the grounds that defendant's rights had been violated in that no Indian had ever been called to serve in Yellow Medicine County on either a petit or grand jury. The trial court granted the motion and the case was set for trial for the spring term of the district court. When the defense asked that bail be set, the county attorney asked that it be set at $50,000, but the court placed it at $10,000 over defendant's objections that it should be only $5,000. On November 30, 1956, a motion was made that the bail be set at $2,000, which motion was denied. On March 18, 1957, an amended information was filed by the county attorney and the trial commenced on March 25, 1957. Persons of Indian descent were represented on the panel of jurors for defendant's trial but were apparently properly excused from serving.

At the time of the trial McLafferty, who was then an inmate of Stillwater State prison, and Collins, an inmate of the reformatory at St. Cloud, were brought in as witnesses on writs of habeas corpus issued by the trial judge at the request of defendant. During the trial, and over the frequent objections of the defense, witnesses McLafferty and Collins, the latter a 17-year-old boy, were kept manacled while in the courtroom. Defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to have the manacles removed from the two witnesses. The state argues that no motion was made or denied. The transcript shows that on the morning of March 27, the third day of the trial, at the opening session, defendant's attorney made the following statement:

'At this time, I want the record to show that the two witnesses are manacled in court, and that this is in violation of the State law that no person shall be exhibited in public manacled, and I demand at this time that the Sheriff immediately remove those manacles and that the jury be instructed not to be prejudiced by the fact that the Sheriff of this County has violated the State law.'

Thereafter the court requested that defendant's counsel show him the state law which he claimed was violated, and after some discussion the court commented, 'We can't change the statute.' Defendant's counsel then stated to the court:

'May the record show that the two witnesses are now being held in court, bound in manacles, and that they were brought into the presence of the jury in that condition, and that they are still in that condition at the present time. And we take an exception, the defendant takes an exception to that on the basis that it is prejudicial to the rights of the defendant, and in violation of State law, Minnesota Statutes Annotated 631.47.'

Section 631.47 provides:

'No person shall be required, as a punishment for crime or the violation of any ordinance or municipal regulation, to labor, with ball and chain attached, upon the streets, parks, or other public works, nor, as a punishment for crime, be held, tied, or bound in public; but such person may be tied or bound for the purpose of taking him to or from jail...