State v. Pioneer Press Company
| Decision Date | 21 February 1907 |
| Docket Number | 14,997 - (22) |
| Citation | 110 N.W. 867,100 Minn. 173 |
| Parties | STATE v. PIONEER PRESS COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The defendant was indicted for publishing an account of an execution. The district court for Ramsey county, Bunn, J overruled a demurrer to the indictment and at the request of defendant certified to the supreme court the questions whether chapter 20, Laws 1889, violated section 1 of art. 1 of the state constitution or either of the other clauses of that instrument mentioned in the syllabus, or section 1 of art. 14 of the federal constitution, and whether the facts stated in the indictment constituted a public offense. Affirmed.
Liberty of the Press -- Act Constitutional.
Appellant was indicted for publishing, contrary to the provisions of chapter 20, p. 66, Laws 1889, in its newspaper, an account of the execution of a criminal convicted of murder.
Held the act entitled "An act providing the mode of inflicting the punishment of death, the manner in which the same shall be carried into effect, and declaring a violation of any of the provisions of this act to be a misdemeanor," complies with the requirements of section 27, art. 4, of the constitution with respect to the title, and is not in conflict with section 3, art. 1, of the constitution, which preserves the liberty of the press, nor with section 6, art. 1, which guaranties to the accused in criminal prosecutions the right to a speedy and public trial.
T. R. Kane and O. H. O'Neill, for the State.
Frederick G. Ingersoll, Charles A. Hart, Munn & Thygeson, and J. R. Hickey, for defendant.
Appellant was indicted for publishing an account of the execution of William Williams, in violation of the provisions of chapter 20, p. 66, Laws 1889.
The act requires that executions take place before the hour of sunrise on the day designated, in an inclosure from which the public are excluded, and in the presence of the following persons only:
Sec. 5. Besides the sheriff and his assistants, the following persons may be present at the execution, but none other: The clergyman, or priest, in attendance upon the prisoner, and such other persons as the prisoner may designate, not exceeding three in number, a physician or surgeon, to be selected by the sheriff, and such other persons as the sheriff may designate, not exceeding six in number, but no person so admitted shall be a newspaper reporter or representative. No account of the details of such execution beyond the statement of the fact that such convict was on the day in question duly executed according to law, shall be published in any newspaper.
Briefly stated, the indictment charged that appellant, on February 13, 1906, did print and publish the details of the execution by setting out the movements of the officers and the convict from the time they left the jail until they reached the scaffold, the last statement of the prisoner, the manner in which he was prepared for execution, the adjustment of the noose and the black cap, the springing of the trap, the pronouncement of death, the removal of the body to the undertaker's rooms, and the autopsy performed under the supervision of the coroner. The indictment was demurred to upon the ground that the facts stated therein do not constitute a public offense. The demurrer was overruled by the trial court, and, in view of their importance, certain questions were certified to this court.
1. Chapter 20, p. 66, Laws 1889, is not in violation of section 27, art. 4, of the constitution, which requires that no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. The title of the act reads:
An act providing the mode of inflicting the punishment of death, the manner in which the same shall be carried into effect, and declaring a violation of any of the provisions of this act to be a misdemeanor.
It is asserted on behalf of appellant that there is nothing in the title which reasonably suggests that the act contains a provision making it a criminal offense for a newspaper to publish an account of an execution; that the title is restrictive, being limited solely to the manner of inflicting the punishment of death, and the means of carrying such punishment into effect. It is true that the constitution has made the title of an act the exclusive index to the legislative intent, and that the courts cannot enlarge the scope of the title; but in our judgment the provision in the body of this act with reference to the publication of facts by a newspaper concerning an execution is fairly and reasonably embraced in the general heading of the title. The evident purpose of the act was to surround the execution of criminals with as much secrecy as possible, in order to avoid exciting an unwholesome effect on the public mind. For that reason it must take place before dawn, while the masses are at rest, and within an inclosure, so as to debar the morbidly curious. The number of witnesses is limited to the minimum, and, to give further effect to the purpose of avoiding publicity, newspaper reporters and representatives of the press are prohibited, and the publication of the event is limited to a mere statement of the fact that the execution took place. Publication of the facts in a newspaper would tend to offset all the benefits of secrecy provided for, and therefore the restriction as to publication has direct relation to and connection with the other matters embraced within the act. The title does not set out the whole of the statute, nor is it essential that it should; but it does not serve as a cloak for legislating upon dissimilar matters, or subjects not naturally connected with the one embraced in the title, as suggested in Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 84 N.W. 788.
A reasonable and liberal construction of the constitutional...
To continue reading
Request your trial