State v. Owen
| Decision Date | 03 February 1930 |
| Docket Number | 28116-28124 |
| Citation | 126 So. 25,156 Miss. 487 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. OWEN |
. (Division B.)
1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION. Presence in grand jury room of bar association's report charging defendant with extortion in office and its consideration by jury held to vitiate indictments returned against defendant.
Presence in grand jury room of bar association's report charging defendant with various and sundry acts of extortion in office, and setting out evidence in detail on which such charges were based, and its consideration by grand jury, held to vitiate indictments returned against defendant for crime of extortion in office of justice of the peace.
2. GRAND JURY. Law prohibits outsiders from taking any part in deliberations of grand jury.
Law prohibits outsiders from taking any part whatever in deliberations of grand jury.
3. GRAND JURY. Investigations of grand jury should be confined strictly to testimony of witnesses having knowledge of facts touching matters under inquiry.
Investigations of grand jury should be confined strictly to testimony of witnesses having knowledge of facts touching matters under inquiry.
APPEAL from circuit court of Forrest county HON. TOM TAYLOR, Judge.
A. H Owen was indicted for the crime of extortion in office. The indictments were quashed, and the State appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Forrest B. Jackson, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
The fact that a portion of the testimony and evidence before the grand jury was incompetent is not a basis for, nor will such fact support, a motion to quash the indictment.
First Bishop's Criminal Procedure, sec. 72, page 517, note 4; Hammond v. State, 74 Miss. 214, 21 So. 149; State v. Bacon, 77 Miss. 366, 27 So. 563; State v. Coulter, 61 So. 706, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1142; Price v. State, 120 So. 751.
Francis Harmon and T. J. Wills, of Hattiesburg, for the state.
The court will not inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury to find an indictment.
Price v. State, 120 So. 751; Blowe v. State 130 Miss. 112, 93 So. 577, 24 A.L.R. 1429; Tucker v. State, 61 Miss. 754; Kind v. State, 5 How. 730; Rocco v. State, 37 Miss. 357; Durr v. State, 53 Miss. 425; Kyzar v. State, 125 Miss. 79, 87 So. 415; Baldwyn v. State, 125 Miss. 561, 88 So. 162; People of N.Y. v. Shea, 147 N.Y. 78, 41 N.E. 505.
An indictment will not be quashed where it does not appear from any affirmative proof that the grand jury was influenced to any degree by improper evidence.
Thompson & Meriam on Juries, pars. 467-614, 2 Sawyer 673.
Currie, Stevens & Currie, of Hattiesburg, for appellee.
It is true that one indicted is to be tried by his peers, and, if falsely accused, may expect a deliverance; but he is entitled to attack the prosecution in limine where it is procured by means unknown to and unsanctioned by law.
Welch v. State, 8 So. 673-674; Durr v. State, 53 Miss. 427; Wilson v. State, 13 So. 225, 35 Am. St. Rep. 664; State v. Barnett, 54 So. 313-315; Collier v. State, 61 So. 689-690; Lewis v. The State, 96 So. 169; Lewis v. State, 96 So. 737.
Having made the overwhelming proof as disclosed by the record in this cause, appellee did not have to go as far as he did to prove influence, but having made a prima-facie showing, any court would have presumed improper influence.
Carter v. State, 54 So. 734; Bill Durr v. State, 53 Miss. 425.
R. L. Bullard, of Hattiesburg, for appellee.
As the authorities cited by Messers. Wills, Harmon and the attorney-general relate mostly to inquiry into evidence before the grand jury, they will not be commented on because not material. No effort has been made by us to inquire into that. How much, how little, or whether any evidence was before the grand jury we did not inquire nor could we. If we have shown that improper influence was introduced into the grand jury room, then it makes no difference whether there was competent evidence sufficient to justify the indictments or not. As to this, since the authorities are so well analyzed in the dissenting opinion in the Price case, 127 So. 751, I refer to that as a much clearer and more satisfactory statement of them than I can possibly make.
Appellee, a justice of the peace of Forrest county, was indicted for the crime of extortion in office at the April, 1929, term of the circuit court of that county. Ten separate indictments were returned against appellee, charging him with as many separate acts of extortion. Appellee made a motion to quash all the indictments, the ground of the motion being common to all. The ground was that improper outside influences had been brought to bear on the grand jury to find the indictments. The evidence as to the alleged outside influences was the same as to each indictment. The motion to quash was sustained, and from that judgment the state appeals.
Appellee, in his motion to quash, charged that at least two distinct outside influences were brought to bear on the grand jury to return the indictments. The conclusion we have reached renders it necessary to consider only one of them, namely, the action of the Forrest County Bar Association, and of a committee of that Association, appointed to investigate and report to the Bar Association any illegalities in the administration of the laws by the justices of the peace of that county.
A few days before the indictments were returned against appellee, the Forrest County Bar Association, composed of thirty-odd lawyers, held a meeting, at which it authorized its president to appoint a special committee, "with instructions to investigate illegalities in procedure and practice in connection with the administration of justice in the justice of the peace courts of Forrest county." The Bar Association instructed the committee to report its findings to the Association. The presiding appointed as members of this committee seven members of the Bar Association. This special committee proceeded at once to carry out its mission. After making the investigation required of them, they reported their findings, embodied in thirteen type-written pages, in which it was set out that appellee and L. Korndoffer, justices of the peace of the county, and B. O. Doherty, a constable of the county, had been guilty of various acts of extortion in office, and in connection therewith set out the evidence on which the committee relied as constituting the offenses. The following are two paragraphs of the report.
The report was signed by the chairman and secretary of the committee.
While the grand jury was considering whether they would find and return indictments against appellee for extortion in office, there were three copies of this report to the Bar Association in the grand jury room.
On the motion to quash, Mr. Hosey, the district attorney of the judicial district in which Forrest county is situated, was called and testified as a witness on behalf of appellee. The questions propounded to the witness, and his answers thereto, on direct examination, were as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cumbest v. State
...session; (c) Permitting the grand jury to hear hearsay evidence. Appellant cites one case in support of this assignment: State v. Owen, 156 Miss. 487, 126 So.25 (1930). Two justices of the peace and a constable had been investigated independently by the Forrest County Bar Association for ex......
-
Hood v. State
...than the witness undergoing examination, and the duly authorized prosecuting officer, is improper," citing the case of State v. Owen, 156 Miss. 487, 126 So. 25, 28 and cases from other jurisdictions. In the Owen case our Court said, among other things, that "if the door of the grand jury ro......
-
Forbert v. State
... ... circuit judge held the two bottles of wine before the eyes ... and persons of the grand jury and urged an indictment. In ... support of this proposition, while there was no motion ... qualifying an indictment, we think the following is ... applicable: ... State ... v. Owen, 126 So. 25; Welch v. State, 8 So. 673; ... Wilson v. State, 138 So. 225; State v. Barnett, 541 ... Our ... Supreme Court has constantly held that the law prohibits ... outsiders from taking any part in the deliberations of the ... grand jury, and that the investigations of the grand ... ...
-
Simmons v. State
... ... in the grand jury room. An examination of the audit discloses ... that it contains conclusions, arguments, and statements as to ... illegal transactions, all of which would be calculated to ... prejudice the grand jury against the appellant ... State ... v. Owen, 156 Miss. 487, 126 So. 25 ... The ... appellant did not have a fair and impartial trial ... The ... jury was hand-picked in its last analysis. We do not charge ... corrupt motives on the part of the sheriff or the ... prosecution. In fact, we do not believe that there was ... ...