State v. Volk
| Decision Date | 28 November 1919 |
| Docket Number | 21,533 |
| Citation | 174 N.W. 883,144 Minn. 223 |
| Parties | STATE v. FRANK VOLK |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
From a judgment of the municipal court of the city of Mankato, Goff J., convicting defendant of a violation of a traffic ordinance of that city, he appealed. Affirmed.
Criminal law -- compelling prisoner to plead to new charge.
Where a person is in custody for trial on a criminal charge and a new charge is preferred against him in legal form, of which the court has jurisdiction, the court may require him to plead to such new charge without the formality of the issuance and service of a warrant of arrest.
Regan & Grogan, for appellant.
Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General, and C. E. Phillips, County Attorney, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted in the municipal court of Mankato of having violated a traffic ordinance of the city and appeals.
The inference from the settled case is that defendant was in custody on some charge growing out of his operation of a Ford automobile upon the streets of the city on May 3, 1919, his trial having been continued from time to time until May 17 at which time the prosecuting attorney preferred an oral complaint against defendant for having violated said ordinance on May 3, and also moved for a dismissal of the proceeding, whatever it might have been, under which he had theretofore been held. The court thereupon directed an officer to "bring in Mr. Volk," and when he was brought the court said: "Come forward, Mr. Volk." Then he addressed the attorney saying: "Mr. Regan, you are attorney for the defendant, do you plead guilty or not guilty?" Mr. Regan responded: "We want to plead not guilty when the proper time comes, but there is no complaint filed and no warrant issued and we object to the jurisdiction of the court in the matter." Some further talk took place between the court and defendant's attorney, in which the latter moved for postponement to prepare for trial; however, all the time insistently challenging the jurisdiction of the court on the grounds stated.
Without stopping to consider whether the principle applied in State v. Fitzgerald, 51 Minn. 534, 53 N.W. 799 should govern here, so that by asking for a continuance he waived the right to raise the question of jurisdiction, we come directly to the only point raised by the appeal, namely: Was the court without jurisdiction of defendant in this case because no warrant had been issued or served therein? No question is made in this court but that the oral complaint made in open court by the prosecuting attorney and entered on its records was as efficacious legally as a formal written verified complaint duly filed. Nor could there well be, for in section 18 of chapter 119, page 358, Sp. Laws 1885, establishing the municipal court of the city of Mankato, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial