State v. Nelson

• Decision Date: 23 December 1903
• Docket Number: Nos. 12,764 - (18).,s. 12,764 - (18).
• Citation: 91 Minn. 143
• Parties: STATE v. CHARLES NELSON and Another.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 143

91 Minn. 143

STATE v. CHARLES NELSON and Another.¹

Nos. 12,764 - (18).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 23, 1903.

Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Steele county, Buckham, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a trial and conviction of the crime of murder in the first degree. Affirmed.

Samuel Lord and Harlan E. Leach, for appellants.

W. B. Douglas, Attorney General, S. T. Littleton, County Attorney, and W. F. Sawyer, for the State.

BROWN, J.²

Charles and Henry Nelson and William Sutton were jointly indicted by the grand jury of Steele county of the crime of murder in the first degree, being thereby charged with having feloniously and with premeditated design killed one Henry Krier in that county on April 13, 1903. Sutton pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Defendants Nelson pleaded not guilty, were thereafter tried and found guilty of murder in the first degree, and appealed from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

New trials in criminal prosecutions have for many years been granted by the courts with too much liberality (3 Columbia Law Rev. 433); and to such an extent have the technical rights of accused persons been magnified and upheld, and that, too, in cases where guilt has been over-whelmingly shown, as to result in much public discontent, and to bring the administration of the criminal laws into disrespect. Errors of no vital consequence, at least not affecting materially the substantial rights of the accused, either in the admission or exclusion of evidence, in the instructions of the trial court to the jury, or alleged misconduct of the prosecuting attorney, have opened prison doors and liberated many criminals. This condition has caused peaceful and law-abiding citizens to become lawless, and to join in the barbarous method of punishing crime by a resort to the court of Judge Lynch. All such outrages of the law have been attributed in the main to the lax administration of the laws in the criminal courts, the gravity and tenacity with which they respect the alleged legal rights of the criminal, and the unnecessarily strict adherence to ancient forms and procedure. Remedies have been suggested, among others that the right of appeal be taken away in such cases, but it is believed that the only appropriate way to quiet the public mind in this respect, and restore confidence in the ability of the courts to administer justice, not only to the criminal, but to society and the state as well, and to overcome the tendency to resort to lynch law, is a prompt and speedy trial, conviction, and certain and unrelenting punishment of the guilty, unaccompanied by the long delays usually incident to the administration of criminal laws, and unaccompanied, too, by too much respect for refined and subtle technicalities. New trials should be granted only where the substantial rights of the accused have been so violated as to make it reasonably clear that a fair trial was not had.

In all cases removed to the highest court for review, the evidence, when returned on the appeal, should first be looked to for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of defendant. If there be no doubt of his guilt, alleged errors not affecting his substantial or constitutional rights should be brushed aside, and in their place substituted the almighty force and power of truth. The conviction of an innocent person is far too remote, a probability to justify an application of the technical rules of law so necessary in olden times, when persons were not surrounded by the same constitutional and statutory safeguards as at the present day. The safeguards thrown around accused persons are not intended as a means to enable the criminal to effect an escape from the punishment his crime calls for, but to protect the innocent and secure to all a fair, impartial, and orderly trial on definite lines of procedure. The Supreme Court of Michigan has taken an advanced and commendable position on this subject, and one that might well be followed and applied by other courts. It is elementary that a trial court cannot instruct a jury to return a verdict of guilty in a criminal prosecution. Yet the Supreme Court of that state held that, though such an instruction was given to a jury and acted upon by them in the verdict of guilty returned, the action of the court was not prejudicial error, for the uncontroverted evidence in the case showed the guilt of the defendant beyond any doubt. People v. Neumann, 85 Mich. 98, 48 N. W. 290, and other Michigan cases cited in the opinion. The guilt of the person accused in that case, and in the others cited by the court, was given special and prominent significance in determining the sufficiency and merit of the errors relied upon by the defendant for a reversal.

In the light of these observations, not intended as a criticism of any particular court, but rather of general conditions respecting the administration of the criminal laws, we shall consider the errors relied upon by defendants in the case at bar. Our examination of the evidence leaves no doubt in our minds as to their guilt, and we are not in the least hampered by the thought that perhaps they are innocent. The evidence will be discussed briefly further along, and the alleged errors in law disposed of first.

1. The crime for which defendants were tried and convicted was committed near the city of Owatonna, in Steele county. At the time, and for some subsequent period, it created considerable excitement, was generally discussed by the people and in the newspapers, and all lawabiding citizens were highly incensed and wrought up over the affair, it being a particularly cold-blooded murder for the purpose of robbery. Before the trial of the action commenced, defendants Nelson moved the court for a change of venue on the ground that, as the people of Steele county were prejudiced and biased against them, it would be impossible to obtain a fair jury or have an impartial trial therein. The court denied the motion, and the order denying it is assigned as error.

An order changing the venue in criminal cases is one resting largely in the sound judgment and discretion of the trial court. While every person accused of crime is guarantied by the Constitution and laws of the state a fair and impartial trial, and where such cannot be had in the county where the offense was committed, it is the duty of the trial court to order a change of venue to a county where such trial can be had, yet whether in any case a change of venue should be granted rests in its discretion. State v. Stokely, 16 Minn. 249 (282). The showing made in support of the motion in the case at bar was quite strong, but we are not prepared to say that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. That defendants had a fair and impartial trial as a matter of fact, whatever doubts they may have had of their ability to obtain it in Steele county, appears to us clear. They were by consent given forty peremptory challenges at the trial, but in obtaining the jury which finally passed upon their guilt or innocence they exercised but ten, showing that, whatever public excitement there may have been concerning the case, there was not such prejudice against defendants, or opinion on the merits of the case, as to render it at all difficult to obtain a fair and impartial jury.

2. At the opening of the trial defendants requested, in view of the alleged public feeling at Owatonna, the place of holding the trial, that the jury be kept in charge of the sheriff and not permitted to separate. The court denied the request, and this order, also, is assigned as error. The question has frequently been before us, and we have uniformly held that it is a matter purely discretionary with the trial court whether to confine the jury or permit them to separate during the trial. No reason is presented in the record in this case to justify us in holding that the court abused its discretion. State v. Bilansky, 3 Minn. 169 (246); State v. Ryan, 13 Minn. 343 (370).

3. It appeared during the trial of the action that, after defendants had been arrested and confined in jail, defendant Sutton retained an attorney to defend him, or otherwise protect his rights and interests in the prosecution to be brought against him, between whom certain communications were had, both oral and written, concerning the commission of the crime. At the trial the attorney was called as a witness, and upon cross-examination by defendant's attorney was asked whether he had not received a written communication from Sutton concerning the commission of the crime, and, upon answering that he had, he was asked to produce it. The attorney claimed that the communication was privileged; and it was objected that he could be required neither to produce it nor to testify regarding its contents, because it was received by him in the course of his professional employment as attorney for Sutton, and was a privileged communication. The court sustained him, and the ruling is assigned as error.

Our statutes provide (G. S. 1894, § 5662, subd. 2) that an attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon, in the course of his professional employment. It is the sworn duty of an attorney at all times to maintain inviolate the confidence reposed in him by his client, and at every peril preserve his client's secret. If in a case like this the privileged character of the communication to the attorney does not attach because of the fact that Sutton confessed and testified on the trial as a witness for the state concerning the commission of the crime, and the statute does not apply, and if it be conceded that the ruling of the court on this subject was erroneous, it is quite clear that it is not shown that the error was prejudicial to the rights of defendants. It...