State v. Howard
Citation | 68 N.W. 1096,66 Minn. 309 |
Decision Date | 25 November 1896 |
Docket Number | 10,178--(56) |
Parties | STATE OF MINNESOTA v. JOHN R. HOWARD |
Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Case certified from district court for Wright county, Smith, J Reversed.
Let the remittitur be sent down at once on the application of the attorney general.
W. E Culkin and Rome G. Brown, for defendant.
H. W Childs, George B. Edgerton, and J. T. Alley, for the State.
OPINION
The defendant demurred to the indictment returned against him by the grand jury of the county of Wright, and filed in the district court of such county on June 16, 1896. The court overruled the demurrer, and certified the case to this court.
Omitting the title, the indictment is in these words:
The section of the Penal Code upon which the indictment is based reads thus:
Pen. Code, § 64 (G. S. 1894, § 6348).
1. The crime attempted to be charged in the indictment is "offering a bribe to a juror," or, strictly speaking, causing a bribe to be offered to a juror. In the commencement of the indictment the crime is designated as "bribery of a judicial officer." This discrepancy is the first objection to the indictment urged by the defendant. An error in designating the name of the crime in the commencement of the indictment is an irregularity only. The charging part of the indictment must be alone considered in determining whether the indictment charges a public offense. If it states facts showing the commission of a crime by the defendant, the law determines its name and nature, and neither a misnomer of the crime nor the omission to give it a name affects the validity of the indictment. State v. Hinckley, 4 Minn. 261 (345); State v. Garvey, 11 Minn. 95 (154); State v. Coon, 18 Minn. 464 (518); State v. Munch, 22 Minn. 67.
It is further urged that the indictment is insufficient because it does not charge that the person to whom the bribe was offered was a juror. The allegations of the indictment in this respect are sufficient.
2. Two other objections to the indictment are assigned in support of the demurrer meriting more serious consideration. They are: (a) that the indictment does not contain any direct and certain allegation of fact as to the amount, kind, or value of the thing offered as a bribe; (b) that it is not alleged that the defendant knew that the person to whom the offer was made was then a juror.
It is claimed by the state that the indictment substantially follows the statute in alleging what was offered to the juror, and that it is sufficient in all other respects, when tested by the requirements of the statute, which, so far as here material, are: the indictment shall be direct and certain as regards the offense charged, and the particular circumstances thereof, when they are necessary to constitute a complete offense. The indictment is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom that the act charged as the offense is clearly set forth in ordinary and concise language, and that the act constituting the offense is stated with such a degree of certainty as to enable the court to pronounce judgment upon a conviction according to the right of the case. No indictment is insufficient by reason of a defect or imperfection in matter of form which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits. G. S. 1894, §§ 7241, 7247, 7248.
These are wholesome and sensible provisions, which should be liberally construed, and indictments sustained where the objection is as to matters of form, and not of substance. But they were not intended to encourage laxity in criminal pleading in matters of substance, but simply to cure "a disease of the law" resulting from the overnicety of courts and their lack of practical sense in giving effect to formal defects in indictments. The statute dispenses with mere formality and technicality, but the requirement that the indictment must be direct and certain as regards the offense, and the particular circumstances thereof, is imperative. State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 393 (490); State v. McIntyre, 19 Minn. 65 (93). The rule that the charge must be laid positively, and not inferentially by way of recital merely, is not abrogated by the statute.
It is true, as claimed by the state, that an indictment may charge the commission of a statutory offense in the language of the statute without greater...
To continue reading
Request your trial