State v. Woodward

• Citation: 238 P. 525,41 Idaho 353
• Parties: STATE, Respondent, v. MAY WOODWARD and JOHN DOE WOODWARD, Appellants
• Decision Date: 05 August 1925
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

238 P. 525

41 Idaho 353

STATE, Respondent, v. MAY WOODWARD and JOHN DOE WOODWARD, Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

August 5, 1925

CRIMINAL LAW - INTOXICATING LIQUORS-PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT-ARREST-WAIVER OF PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION-COMMITMENT-INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION-SUFFICIENCY OF ACCUSATION.

1. A complaint charging commission of an indictable misdemeanor is sufficient if it gives the defendant a fair opportunity to know by proffered preliminary examination the general character and outline of the offense for which he is to have such examination.

2. Complaint in this case charging commission of the crime of maintaining a common nuisance held sufficient within foregoing rule.

3. Held, that there is sufficient showing made that both defendants were actually arrested.

4. A defendant not personally appearing before the committing magistrate may waive preliminary examination through a codefendant thereto authorized.

5. Held, in this case, that preliminary examination was waived by both defendants.

6. Order of commitment examined, and held not fatally defective as to either defendant.

7. Held, that the information herein sufficiently charges the commission of the crime of maintaining a common nuisance.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, for Benewah County. Hon. W. F. McNaughton, Judge.

Appeal from judgment imposing sentence of fine and imprisonment upon conviction of the crime of maintaining a common nuisance. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

R. B Norris, for Appellants.

The complaint must state facts sufficient to constitute a crime or warrant cannot issue. (16 C. J. 288, 295, 296, 301, and cases cited; State v. Goetz, 65 Kan. 125, 69 P 187.) (This case is exactly in point on similar statute.)

A warrant issued on insufficient complaint is void and a nullity. (People v. Moss, 187 N.Y. 410, 10 Ann. Cas 309, 80 N.E. 383; 16 C. J. 291, 310 and 311; C. S. 8711.)

Facts stated in the complaint or information control rather than the name given to offense. (State v. Mickey, 27 Idaho 626, 150 P. 39; State v. Smith, 25 Idaho 541, 138 P. 1107.)

Waiver of hearing does not waive sufficiency of complaint. (United States v. Ruroede, 220 F. 210.)

A waiver of preliminary hearing must be voluntary after all the statutes in relation to the preliminary hearing have been complied with, to establish the jurisdiction of the magistrate to act. (16 C. J. 184.)

A. H. Conner, Attorney General, and John W. Cramer, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

The information and criminal complaint are sufficiently definite to charge the crime of maintaining a liquor nuisance. (C. S., sec. 2631; State v. Steers, 12 Idaho 174, 85 P. 104; State v. O'Neil, 24 Idaho 582, 135 P. 60; State v. Andrus, 29 Idaho 1, 156 P. 421; State v. Lundhigh, 30 Idaho 365, 164 P. 690.)

A preliminary examination may be waived. (C. S., sec. 8816; State v. Larkins, 5 Idaho 200, 47 P. 945.)

An objection based upon such defects is available only where defendant is held under the warrant of arrest issued on the complaint. (State v. Main, 37 Idaho 449, 216 P. 731.)

BUDGE, J. William A. Lee, C. J., and Wm. E. Lee, Givens and Taylor, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BUDGE, J.

This appeal is from a judgment imposing a sentence of fine and imprisonment, appellants having been convicted of the crime of maintaining a common nuisance in violation of C. S., sec. 2631.

Appellants make and rely upon the following assignments of error: 1. The court erred in denying the defendants' motion to quash and set aside the information as to each of the defendants; 2. The court erred in overruling the demurrer of each of the defendants to the information; 3. The court erred in permitting the state to introduce any evidence in support of said information herein over the objection of the defendants, and each of them; 4. The court erred in rendering the pretended judgment of the sentence shown by the minutes of the court in relation thereto purporting to be against the defendants and each of them.

Under the first assignment, viz., that the court erred in not setting aside and annulling the information as to each of the defendants, or at least as to one of them, appellants make a number of points. Their first is that "under the provisions of C. S., sec. 8711, the magistrate could not have been satisfied that a crime had been committed, or that defendants or either of them committed it, from the statements in the complaint, and hence no warrant of arrest should have been issued." If we understand counsel's contention correctly, the objection urged is that the complaint upon which the warrant of arrest was issued fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense, and therefore the magistrate could not have been satisfied that a crime had been committed. C. S., sec. 2631, provides that "all places where . . . . persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors as a beverage, or where intoxicating liquors are kept for sale, delivery or disposition in violation of law . . . . are hereby declared to be common nuisances." The charging part of the complaint alleges that appellants "then and there" kept "intoxicating liquors" in a certain boathouse and permitted "persons to resort thereto for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors," contrary to the form of the statute, etc. No formal or detailed charge or description of the offense is necessary in the complaint before the magistrate, and all that is required is a general description or designation of the offense so that the defendant may be given a fair opportunity to know, by a proffered preliminary examination, the general character and outline of the offense for which he is to have an examination. (State v. McGreevey, 17 Idaho 453, 105 P. 1047.) Measured by the foregoing rule, the complaint is sufficiently definite to advise the defendants of the character and outline of the offense. The sufficiency of the allegations is further discussed under assignment of error No. 2.

The second point raised under assignment No. 1 is that "John Doe Woodward was never arrested and the magistrate never obtained jurisdiction over his person." The officer's return shows that the warrant was received by him on August 27, 1924, and that he executed it on the same day "upon May Woodward for the crime of maintaining a common nuisance." In amplification and explanation of his return, the officer making the arrest made an affidavit that he went to the boathouse, the residence of the defendants, and executed the warrant of arrest by placing both of the defendants under arrest; that John Doe Woodward had a black eye and a bruised face and begged the officer not to take him before the court. At the suggestion of the officer, John Doe Woodward, over the telephone, called up the probate judge who had issued the warrant and instructed him that May Woodward, his wife, was authorized to act for him. May Woodward then accompanied the officer to the committing magistrate's office, and there waived preliminary examination for herself and for her husband. All this appears from the affidavit of the arresting officer....