State v. Smith

• Decision Date: 15 December 1911
• Docket Number: Nos. 17,235 - (1).,s. 17,235 - (1).
• Citation: 116 Minn. 228
• Parties: STATE v. SAMUEL G. SMITH.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 228

116 Minn. 228

STATE v. SAMUEL G. SMITH.¹

Nos. 17,235 - (1).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 15, 1911.

Case certified from the district court for Ramsey County, Orr, J., under R. L. 1905, § 5409, for the determination of the questions stated in the opinion. Dismissed.

Richard D. O'Brien, County Attorney, and Patrick J. Ryan, Assistant County Attorney, for the state.

Durment, Moore & Sanborn, for defendant.

BROWN, J.

An order to show cause was duly issued in the court below, requiring defendant to appear at a time and place named to answer to a charge of contempt of court. The order was issued upon an affidavit presented to the court by the county attorney, charging defendant with an attempt to influence the action of a grand juror in respect to a matter then pending before the jury, and which involved the questions whether an indictment should be returned against one Hubbell on an accusation of manslaughter. On the return day defendant appeared and submitted an affidavit in explanation of the matters charged against him, affirming therein that he supposed and believed he was within his rights as a citizen, that he did not intend thereby to attempt to influence the juror, and that he had no purpose to act in contempt of the authority of the court. His counsel then moved that he be discharged, upon several grounds, only two of which are here involved, namely:

(1) That the affidavit made the basis of the proceeding failed to state facts constituting a contempt of court; and

(2) That the facts so alleged, together with those stated and admitted in defendant's affidavit, were insufficient to justify a conviction of contempt of court.

The court overruled the motion, to which ruling defendant duly excepted. Thereupon, at the request of defendant, the court, acting under section 5409, R. L. 1905, certified the proceeding to this court for the determination of the questions so raised.

We are confronted at the outset with the question of jurisdiction. In other words, may proceedings of this character, before the conviction of the accused, be certified to this court, under section 5409, R. L. 1905, for the determination of the questions raised and involved therein? If not, then the proceedings in this court must be dismissed, for there was no trial or conviction in the court below. The statute referred to provides that, if upon the trial of any person convicted in the district court, or if upon any demurrer or special plea to the indictment, or upon any motion upon or relating thereto, any question of law shall arise which in the opinion of the judge is so important or doubtful as to require the decision of the supreme court, he shall, if the defendant shall request or consent thereto, report the case and the questions so arising to the supreme court for its decision.

The statute authorizes a certification of criminal cases t...