State v. Holscher

• Decision Date: 24 May 1968
• Docket Number: No. 40853,40853
• Citation: 280 Minn. 313,159 N.W.2d 280
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Glen Ray HOLSCHER, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 280

159 N.W.2d 280

280 Minn. 313

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Glen Ray HOLSCHER, Appellant.

No. 40853.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 24, 1968.

Syllabus by the Court

1. State district court's findings that incriminating statements of defendant admitted into evidence against him at trial were made voluntarily and not under circumstances violating any of his constitutional rights were amply supported by the evidence adduced at evidentiary hearing on that sole issue; and district court's order denying defendant a new trial and reinstating judgment vacated by United States Court of Appeals subject to such hearing was accordingly proper.

2. Adult Corrections Commission, upon proper application of defendant, should limit sentence to the maximum provided for the crime for which defendant was convicted rather than double that penalty for reason that prior felony conviction has been duly vacated as improperly adjudged.

Glen Ray Holscher, pro se.

Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, George M. Scott, County Atty., Henry W. McCarr, Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.

OPINION

PETERSON, Justice.

Defendant was adjudged guilty in Hennepin County District Court on February 5, 1959, of the crime of third-degree murder upon evidence which included three incriminating statements made by him to police officers prior to trial. He had previously been convicted of a felony in Fillmore County District Court, so the sentence in Hennepin County District Court, statutorily doubled by reason of the prior felony conviction, ¹ was for an indeterminate term of 14 to 60 years; ² but that prior judgment of conviction was Thereafter vacated by the Fillmore County District Court on December 17, 1962, upon defendant's coram nobis petition.

Questions concerning the voluntariness of defendant's incriminating statements and the propriety of his sentence have been exhaustively heard and considered in both state and Federal courts but without final disposition. The judgment of conviction was reviewed on writ of error and affirmed by this court on January 19, 1962, State v. Holscher, 261 Minn. 478, 113 N.W.2d 94, certiorari denied, 370 U.S. 955, 82 S.Ct. 1607, 8 L.Ed.2d 821, in which we held that defendant had been accorded a fair trial and that the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming and beyond a reasonable doubt. ³ On January 10, 1963, defendant commenced a habeas corpus proceeding in Washington County District Court, and the petition was thereafter denied. He then moved in Hennepin County District Court to vacate the judgment, which motion was denied on April 5, 1963. This was followed by another petition for habeas corpus in Washington County District Court, which was denied on June 22, 1963. The next stage was in Federal court. Defendant commenced a habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court of Minnesota on July 2, 1963, where his petition was heard and denied. However, on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, the case was reversed and remanded to the United States District Court. State of Minnesota ex rel. Holscher v. Tahash (8 Cir.) 346 F.2d 556. District Judge Dennis F. Donovan conducted an evidentiary hearing on June 28, 1965, and the petition was again denied. State of Minnesota ex rel. Holscher v. Tahash (D. Minn.) 255 F.Supp. 684. But the Court of Appeals on August 19, 1966, vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded with directions to grant the State of Minnesota a reasonable time to afford defendant an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of his statements or, in the alternative, a new trial. State of Minnesota ex rel. Holscher v. Tahash (8 Cir.) 364 F.2d 922. On remand, an evidentiary hearing was held in Hennepin County District Court before Judge Rolf Fosseen, who had presided at the original trial, and on March 16, 1967, Judge Fosseen made detailed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial and reinstating the judgment of conviction and sentence. This appeal followed.

1. The sole issue presented on This appeal is whether the evidence supports the state district court's findings and conclusions that defendant's three incriminating statements were voluntarily and freely given by him and not under any circumstances violating his constitutional rights. We hold that it does, and amply...