State v. Siporen

• Decision Date: 18 June 1943
• Docket Number: No. 33435.,33435.
• Citation: 215 Minn. 438,10 N.W.2d 353
• Parties: STATE v. SIPOREN.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

10 N.W.2d 353

215 Minn. 438

STATE v. SIPOREN.

No. 33435.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 18, 1943.

Appeal from Municipal Court of Minneapolis, Hennepin County; P. W. Guilford, Judge.

Nate Siporen was convicted of keeping a "disorderly (tippling) house," and from judgment of conviction and order denying motion for new trial, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Neil Hughes, Don E. Morgan, and Paul G. Fisch, all of Minneapolis, for appellant.

R. S. Wiggin, City Atty., and Leo P. McHale, Asst. City Atty., for respondent.

HENRY M. GALLAGHER, Chief Justice.

A "tab charge" placed against defendant in the municipal court of Minneapolis reads: "Jul 11, 1942 R. C. Rudie makes complaint against defendant and says that on the 11th day of July, 1942, at the city of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, the defendant then and there being, did wilfully, unlawfully and wrongfully operate a tippling house at 23 No. Wash. contrary to the provisions of an ordinance passed by the City Council of the City of Minneapolis."

Defendant demurred to the "tab charge" upon the grounds that it failed to allege a public offense or a violation of any city ordinance or state law. Over defendant's objection the state was permitted to amend the "tab charge" to read: "Keep a disorderly (tippling) house at 23 South Washington Minneapolis, Minnesota." The demurrer was overruled, as was defendant's motion for a jury trial. The court found defendant guilty. He appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial and from the judgment of conviction.

Defendant contends (1) that the court erred in allowing the amendment; (2) that the "tab charge," as amended, did not allege the violation of any ordinance or state law and; (3) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction for operating a disorderly house at the place described in the complaint.

1. We find no merit in defendant's contention that he was prejudiced by the amendment. It did not change the nature of the offense nor did the correction of the address from "23 No. Wash." to "23 South Washington" mislead the defendant under the facts here disclosed. The trial court was, on the facts of the case, justified in granting the amendment.

2. The city ordinance with the violation of which defendant was charged (Minneapolis Ordinances, 1872-1925, p. 763) reads: "Section 1. No person or persons shall keep within the limits of the City of Minneapolis a disorderly or ill-governed house or place, or a house of ill-fame or place resorted to for the purpose of prostitution, assignation, fornication, or for the resort of persons of ill-name, or ill-fame or dishonest conversation or common prostitutes; and no person shall procure or suffer to come together at such house or place any of the above described persons, nor commit or suffer to be committed in such house or place any immoral, lewd, lascivious, immodest or other improper conduct or behavior, or any tippling, revelling, rioting or disturbance. Any person violating the provisions or any provision of this section shall upon conviction thereof before the Municipal Court of the City of Minneapolis, be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding ninety days. (As amended April 9, 1888, 13 C.P. 971.)"

The charge, as amended, adequately apprised defendant of the nature of the offense. An almost identical charge was challenged in State v. McDow, 183 Minn. 115, 116, 235 N.W. 637, 638, where the court said: "The city had but one ordinance to which the complaint could relate. The complaint stated facts sufficient to state a public offense under the ordinance."

We have repeatedly said that proceedings for violation of municipal ordinances are not subject to or governed by the technicalities protecting defendants who are asked to answer for a crime against the state. State v. Olson, 115 Minn. 153, 131 N.W. 1084; State v. Jamieson, 211 Minn. 262, 300 N.W. 809; State v. Wilson, 212 Minn. 380, 3 N.W.2d 677. In the light of these authorities, the charge here assailed sufficiently states a public offense under the ordinance.

3. Nor do we find any merit in defendant's contention that the evidence does not justify the conviction. Officer Beaty...