State v. Strait

• Decision Date: 24 March 1905
• Docket Number: Nos. 14,252, 14,253 - (230, 231).,s. 14,252, 14,253 - (230, 231).
• Citation: 94 Minn. 384
• Parties: STATE v. H. BURTON STRAIT.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> SAME v. HENRY SCHREINER.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

94 Minn. 384

STATE v. H. BURTON STRAIT.¹

SAME v. HENRY SCHREINER.

Nos. 14,252, 14,253 - (230, 231).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 24, 1905.

Defendants having been separately indicted in the district court for Scott county for accepting money on deposit in the Scott County Bank at a time when the bank was insolvent, moved severally to quash the indictments on the grounds set forth in the opinion. The motions were heard before Cadwell, J., who made orders denying the same and

thereafter, upon request of defendants, certified the cases to the supreme court for determination of the questions involved. Orders affirmed.

F. J. Leonard, County Attorney, for the State.

Charles R. Fowler and Edward H. Crooker, for defendant Strait; H. J. Peck and A. J. Edgerton, for defendant Schreiner.

LOVELY, J.

This cause is certified here by the district court for Scott county after its refusal to quash and set aside indictments against defendants in view of the importance of the questions submitted.

Defendants Henry Schreiner and H. B. Strait were partners engaged in private banking business at Jordan under the name of the Scott County Bank. Indictments were returned against each for having received specified sums of money when the establishment they were conducting was alleged to be unsafe and insolvent, contrary to chapter 219, p. 504, Laws 1895. Upon arraignment defendants moved to set aside the indictments upon the ground that the same were illegally found and returned. This contention was supported by affidavits, which, so far as material here, disclose the following undisputed facts: Defendant Strait, by a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, sought the protection of the federal court. A receiver was first appointed, and such proceedings were thereafter had that the assets, with the books and papers of the Scott County Bank, were turned over to a trustee (Fred Habegger), who in this way had possession thereof.

An investigation of the affairs of the bank was instituted at the October, 1904, term of the district court for Scott county, though neither Strait nor Schreiner was under recognizance to appear. A subpoena was issued to the trustee, Habegger, personally to attend before the grand jury, where he brought the books and papers of the bank at the request of the prosecuting attorney. Indictments were returned severally against Schreiner and Strait, when it was moved in behalf of Schreiner, and afterwards of Strait, to set aside the same upon the ground that the use of the books and papers of the bank in the hands of Habegger was improper, and thereby infringed defendants' constitutional rights as citizens secured by section 7 of article 1 of the state constitution, which provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal cause to be a witness against himself, and by section 10, which provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated."

While it would not be proper to disclose testimony received before the grand jury, and it would ordinarily be presumed that material evidence only was introduced, yet we are not inclined, in view of the probable consequences of our decision at the trial of the cause, to avoid the questions raised whether the use of the trustee and the books of the bank was in defiance of the constitutional rights secured to the citizen under the organic law of the state, particularly since it has been regarded as of importance by the trial court.

In State v. Gardner, 88 Minn. 130, 92 N. W. 529, we held that a defendant in a criminal case should not be compelled to go before the grand jury in violation of the guaranty referred to, and give evidence either directly or indirectly against himself, or tending to affect his rights upon an indictment founded thereon. The immunity belonging to the defendant invoked for his benefit in that cause was personal, and our decision went no further than to hold that it was an infringement of his rights in violation of the plain letter of the constitution, which invalidated the indictment returned.

In the case of Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 616, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, where under an act of Congress proceedings in rem were instituted to establish a forfeiture of goods alleged to have been fraudulently imported without paying the duties thereon, it was held that an order of the court made under the act referred to requiring claimants of the goods to produce an invoice in court for inspection of the government attorney (to be offered in evidence by him, or to be taken as admitted) was an unconstitutional exercise of authority; and this is as far, upon investigation, as we are able to discover any interpretation of these safeguards in our American jurisprudence protecting private papers from search or seizure or the individual from being compelled to answer incriminating interrogatories. As we understand this decision, the objection to be of potential force must directly involve the action of the court in using compulsory means to obtain evidence which deprives the accused of the protection which is personal to him and to his private papers directly involved. It may be well to state that the court say in their opinion in this case that by the proceeding under consideration the court was attempting to extort from the party his private papers and books, and to make him liable for a penalty or forfeiture of his property.

In the case at bar no subpoena or process to produce the books of the bank was directed to the defendants, or authority exerted to obtain their possession from the person in whom their custody was originally held. No objection appears to have been made to the delivery of the books to the receiver or trustee in bankruptcy. Records...