State v. Taran

• Decision Date: 11 July 1958
• Docket Number: No. 37321,37321
• Citation: 253 Minn. 158,91 N.W.2d 444
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. S. H. TARAN, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 444

91 N.W.2d 444

253 Minn. 158

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. S. H. TARAN, Appellant.

No. 37321.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 11, 1958.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Witnesses in civil or criminal proceedings who voluntarily enter state from foreign jurisdiction to give testimony; or parties to civil litigation who enter to appear therein, are immune from service of process while present for such purposes. Rule is to encourage foreign witnesses to come forward voluntarily to testify and to afford foreign litigants opportunity to be heard in furtherance of administration of justice.

2. Exemption from a civil process does not extend to parties defendant in criminal proceedings present here from a foreign jurisdiction under compulsion to defend themselves therein.

3. M.S.A. § 629.24 which exempts persons brought into state to answer criminal charges from process in civil actions arising out of facts involved in criminal proceedings for which person has been returned has no application where civil action does not arise out of facts involved in criminal charges. Fact that defendant presented himself for trial here under bond requiring his presence under threat that otherwise United States Marshal would compel it under custody establishes that defendant's presence here was under compulsion.

4. Under doctrine of comity, court which first asserts jurisdiction over a person should not be interfered with by another court of foreign jurisdiction, so as to impede orderly administration of justice. Where justice was not impeded by service of civil process upon defendant who was present in state under compulsion to defend criminal charges against him in Federal district court, Held comity did not require that Minnesota court, in determining validity of service, apply Federal doctrine relating thereto.

5. Public policy requires that courts be open and accessible to all persons seeking to have claims or disputes submitted to adjudication therein. Neither public policy nor comity requires that immunity from process in civil proceedings be granted to persons present in state under compulsion to answer criminal charges against them.

Hoffmann, Donahue, Graff, Schultz & Springer, St. Paul, for appellant.

Miles Lord, Atty., Gen., Jerome J. Sicora, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

THOMAS GALLAGHER, Justice.

Appeal from an order denying defendant's motion to vacate service of summons upon him in a civil action by the state to recover delinquent income taxes claimed to be due from him. On April 18, 1957, the date of service, defendant was a resident of the State of Florida where he had resided since 1945 but was present in St. Paul to defend criminal proceedings against him in the United States District Court.

On September 13, 1956, the grand jury for the Federal district of Minnesota returned an indictment against defendant, charging him with violation of 62 Stat. 770, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1505. His trial was set for the April 1957 term of the United States District Court, Third Division, at St. Paul and commenced April 17, 1957. Shortly prior thereto he executed a bond for his appearance therein. By its terms he agreed to be present while the case was being heard or to forfeit the amount of the bond and to be taken into custody by the United States Marshal and compelled to be present during trial in such custody.

Defendant arrived in St. Paul a few days prior to the commencement of his trial and remained there until it was concluded May 8, 1957. The sole purpose of his presence in St. Paul during this period was to defend the criminal proceedings against him and to comply with the terms and provisions of the bond.

On April 18, 1957, while he was thus present, service of summons and complaint in the present proceedings was made upon him in St. Paul. Subsequently, he moved to vacate such service on the ground that the fact that his presence in Minnesota was under compulsion for the purpose of defending himself in criminal proceedings in the United States District Court exempted him from civil process while present for such purpose. On May 28, 1957, the trial court made its order denying this motion, indicating in a memorandum attached thereto that its decision was based upon the decision of this court in Reid v. Ham, 54 Minn. 305, 56 N.W. 35, 21 L.R.A. 232.

On appeal defendant contends (1) that as a nonresident who came into the state to appear as a party in legal proceedings he was exempt from process in civil actions; (2) that by virtue of M.S.A. § 629.24 ¹ he was exempt from service of process; and (3) that under the rule of the Federal court he was immune from civil process while here to defend himself in criminal proceedings in Federal court, and that, since the latter first acquired jurisdiction over his person within Minnesota, under principles of comity the Minnesota court should apply the Federal rule.

1. This court has held that Witnesses in civil or criminal proceedings who voluntarily enter the state from a foreign jurisdiction to give testimony therein are immune from the service of process while present for such purpose. Sherman v. Gundlach, 37 Minn. 118, 33 N.W. 549. Like immunity has been extended to Parties to litigation in civil proceedings present here from a foreign jurisdiction to protect personal interests involved therein. First Nat. Bank v. Ames, 39 Minn. 179, 39 N.W. 308. As indicated in the cited cases the object of the rule is to encourage witnesses from outside the state to come forward voluntarily to testify and to afford foreign litigants full opportunity to be present and heard when their cases are tried in furtherance of the due administration of justice.

2. However, this exemption from civil process has never been extended by this court to parties from foreign jurisdictions who are present here under compulsion for the purpose of defending themselves in criminal proceedings. As stated in Reid v. Ham, 54 Minn. 305, 307, 56 N.W. 35, 36, 21 L.R.A. 232:

'No considerations of public policy, as we think, require that the accused should be exempt from being prosecuted civilly. The considerations upon which our decisions in Sherman v. Gundlach, 37 Minn. 118, 33 N.W. 549, and First Nat. Bank v. Ames, 39 Minn. 179, 39 N.W. 308, were founded have little, if any, application. The declared exemption from service of summons upon a nonresident witness, in the former case, and in the other upon a nonresident party to an action on trial here, and who was also a witness, was based upon the policy of encouraging the voluntary personal attendance, at the trial of causes, of persons whose presence and testimony may be necessary for the better administration of justice, and whose attendance cannot be compelled. As has already been said, in cases of extradition or interstate rendition there is no encouragement or inducement held out to the accused to come voluntarily into the state. He comes by compulsion. We fail to see how the administration of justice could be promoted by holding the accused protected from the service of a summons in a civil action.'

See, also, Bubar v. Dizdar, 240 Minn. 26, 60 N.W.2d 77; Ryan v. Ebecke, 102 Conn. 12, 128 A. 14, 40 A.L.R. 88; Netograph Mfg. Co. v. Scrugham, 197 N.Y. 377, 90 N.W. 962, 27 L.R.A., N.S., 333; White v. Underwood, 125 N.C. 25, 34 S.E. 104, 46 L.R.A. 706; In re Henderson, 27 N.D. 155, 145 N.W. 574, 51 L.R.A., N.S., 328; Anderson v. Atkins, 161 Tenn. 137, 29 S.W.2d 248; State ex rel. Alexander-Coplin & Co....