State v. Hawks
| Decision Date | 05 January 1894 |
| Citation | 57 N.W. 455,56 Minn. 129 |
| Parties | STATE v. HAWKS ET AL. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. Sp. Laws 1876, c. 214, providing that the grand jury lists for Ramsey county shall be selected “from the qualified electors of the several wards in the city of St. Paul and towns of said county,” does not require that the names selected shall be apportioned among the different wards and towns. All that the law requires is that those making the list, having in mind the whole body of the county, shall make the selection with special reference to fitness, regardless of ward or town lines.
2. The witnesses whose names are required to be indorsed on an indictment, or inserted at the foot thereof, are only those who were examined and gave material evidence upon the particular charge alleged in the indictment, at the time when such charge was being investigated by the grand jury.
3. It is not required to indorse or enter the names of witnesses who, while other charges were being investigated, may have given evidence material upon the charge alleged in the indictment, unless the grand jury found the indictment, in whole or in part, on such evidence; and the fact that the names of such witnesses are not indorsed or entered on the indictment is conclusive that the grand jury did not take such evidence into account in finding “a true bill.”
4. The fact that a person may, in the investigation of some other charge by the grand jury, have been required to give evidence which would have been material on the particular charge for which he is indicted, is no cause for setting aside the indictment on the ground that he was required to testify against himself, unless it appears from the indorsement or entry of his name on the indictment as a witness that the grand jury found the bill, in whole or in part, on his evidence.
Case certified from district court, Ramsey county; Kelly, Judge.
Charles A. Hawks and William B. Evans were indicted for grand larceny, and, the court having refused to quash the indictment, the case was certified to the supreme court. Affirmed.
H. W. Childs, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for defendants.
The grand jury of Ramsey county, on October 19th found, and on October 20, 1893, presented in court, an indictment against the defendants jointly for grand larceny in the first degree, committed January 1, 1893, by embezzling $60,000 of the money and personal property of the Seven Corners Bank of St. Paul, while in control and custody of the property as employes and officers of the bank. The names of three witnesses examined before the grand jury were indorsed on the indictment. Each of the defendants made a motion to quash. These motions were made upon the grounds-First, that the grand jury list was not selected, as provided by law, from the qualified electors of the several wards of the city of St. Paul and towns of Ramsey county; second, that the names of certain witnesses examined before the grand jury were not indorsed on the indictment or inserted at the foot thereof; and, third, (as to Evans,) that he was compelled to testify as a witness before the grand jury touching the charge and matters urged against him in the indictment.
The first ground may be very briefly disposed of. All that was presented in support of it was the affidavit of an ex-sheriff, whose term of office expired the year before the grand jury list in question was selected, to the effect that the usual mode of making up grand jury lists during his term of office was to select the names entirely from the city of St. Paul, and usually from the city directory, and that he had examined the names of this particular list, and found that they were all residents of the city, and none of them of the towns outside of the city. The affiant did not claim to have any personal knowledge as to how the list from which this grand jury was drawn had been made up. The fact that they were all residents of the city proved nothing. Chapter 214, Sp. Laws 1876, providing that the lists shall be selected from the several wards of the city and towns of the county, is nothing more than the common-law rule that they must be selected from the body of the county. The board which selects the names is not required to know or ascertain in what particular part of the county each juror resides, or to apportion the names selected among the different wards or towns. All that the law requires is that the board, having in mind the whole body of the county, shall make the best selection it can, with special regard to fitness, regardless of ward or town lines.
2. The second and third grounds of the motions may be considered together. Defendant Evans, in support of his motion, presented his own affidavit to the effect that while the grand jury which found the indictment “was investigating said case, and hearing testimony upon the charge named in said indictment,” he was subpoenaed, and compelled to testify before it as a witness “touching the charge and matters alleged in the indictment against him.” Both defendants also presented the affidavits of several persons, whose names were not indorsed on the indictment, to the effect that while the grand jury “was investigating said case, and hearing testimony upon the charge named in said indictment,” they were subpoenaed, and testified before it as witnesses “touching the charge and matters alleged in the indictment,” or “with reference to the matters set forth in the indictment.” In opposition to the motions, the state presented the affidavit of the clerk of the grand jury that he kept and preserved the minutes of the proceedings of said jury, which minutes were presented and filed in court; that he was present during all the time the jury was in session, and heard the testimony of each and every witness who testified before it; that said minutes were a true and correct record of all the cases considered by said jury; that he entered and recorded in said minutes the name of each and every witness who testified before the grand jury; and that no person testified in any case before said jury whose name does not appear in the minutes, under the title of said case, as a witness therein. The state also presented the minutes of the proceedings of the grand jury referred to in the affidavit of the clerk, and kept as required by Gen. St. 1878, c. 107, § 25. These minutes purport to be a full record of the proceedings of the grand jury during its entire session, showing each day's transactions in regular order, giving the title of each case investigated by the jury, the name of the defendant or person against whom the charge was made, the offense of which he was charged, the names of the witnesses examined, and the final disposition of the case, either by finding “A true bill” or “No bill.” It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rixon
...Court, 144 Minn. 326, 175 N. W. 908. The cases at bar do not come under the exception which defeated the motion to quash in State v. Hawks, 56 Minn. 129, 57 N. W. 455; State v. Mason, 152 Minn. 306, 189 N. W. 452. The transcripts of defendants' testimony placed before the grand jury contain......
-
State ex rel. Shafer v. Dist. Court of Third Judicial Dist. in & for Ransom Cnty.
...A great jurist has said that it seems almost an absurdity to set aside an indictment on any such ground (Mitchell, J., in State v. Hawks, 56 Minn. 129, 57 N. W. 455-458); yet the Legislature has seen fit to make it the mandatory duty (section 10728, C. L. 1913) of the court in these circums......
-
United States v. Kimball
... ... him. This evidence of Rose is modified decidedly by the ... minutes of his evidence hereafter discussed. (4) All the ... defendants state that, had they supposed or been advised that ... statements made by them would or could be considered against ... them by the grand jury, and were ... 55; ... [117 F. 167] ... State v. Froiseth, 16 Minn. 296 (Gil. 260). But in ... connection with the last case State v. Hawks, 56 ... Minn. 129, 57 N.W. 455, should be consulted. (4) Where a ... person accused of a crime was taken before a grand jury, and, ... without ... ...
-
State v. Drews, 40131
...did not appear before the grand jury and does not have to call all of the witnesses who did appear before the grand jury. State v. Hawks, 56 Minn. 129, 57 N.W. 455; State v. Sheltrey, 100 Minn. 107, 110 N.W. 353. A motion to set aside an indictment must be made at the time of arraignment, u......