State v. Wurdemann, 38836
| Decision Date | 08 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 38836,38836 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Arthur K. WURDEMANN, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Proof that a defendant attempted to induce a prospective witness not under subpoena to be absent during the trial of a criminal matter to which her testimony was relevant does not sustain a conviction for fraudulently inducing a witness to withhold true testimony in violation of Minn.St. 613.09, even though the evidence could support a conviction of suppressing evidence in violation of § 613.76.
Jenson, Irvine & Ramstad, Detroit Lakes, (Robert A. Peterson, Crookston, of counsel), for appellant.
Walter F. Mondale, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Houston, Sol. Gen., St. Paul, Edward L Rogers, County Atty., Walker, for respondent.
The appeal is from an order of the district court denying defendant's motion for judgment in his favor or, in the alternative, a new trial, after a verdict of guilty in criminal proceedings.
The information charged defendant with an attempt to induce a witness to withhold true testimony in violation of Minn.St. 613.09. 1 The proof at trial established that defendant attempted to induce a young woman to absent herself completely and give no testimony whatever in an arson case in which it was then contemplated she would be called as a witness. At the time of the inducement alleged, she was not under subpoena. 2 The defendant having been found guilty as charged, the question raised by the appeal is whether the verdict must as a matter of law be set aside.
In State ex rel. Thurston v. Sargent, 71 Minn. 28, 30, 73 N.W. 626, 627, it was held that a defendant who paid a prospective witness $15 to leave Duluth and not appear in a pending criminal proceedings had not violated a statute which is now § 613.09 because that section was directed--
'* * * not against bribing or offering to bribe the witness To stay away from the trial, and Give no testimony at all, but against bribing or offering to bribe him to give false testimony, or 'to withhold true testimony' when testifying.' (Italics supplied.)
This decision has been controlling in Minnesota for 65 year and we are not persuaded to overrule it. 3
The testimony in this case would have justified a conviction under Minn.St. 613.76, which makes an attempt to suppress evidence a gross misdemeanor. 4 However, the information does not charge a violation of this statute; the jury was not instructed with respect to it; and the efforts of defendant's attorney to call the distinction between § 613.09 and § 613.76 to the attention of the prosecution were unavailing.
An indictment or information, in order to be sufficient to support a conviction, must fairly apprise the defendant of the charge brought against him, in order, it has been said, that he might properly prepare his defense, and so that he is protected from subsequent prosecution for the same offense. State v. Eich, 204 Minn. 134, 139, 282 N.W. 810, 814. From another view, the object of the requisite of particularity in criminal pleading has been stated to be to inform the court of the facts alleged so that it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 558, 23 L.Ed. 588, 593.
The minimal requirement, then, is that the indictment or information clearly apprise the accused and the court of the charge. But assuming such minimal standards are met, a mere irregularity or formal defect found in the indictment or information will not constitute ground for reversal of a conviction, the former common-law requisites of formality, technicality, and tautology in criminal pleadings having been relaxed by statute. Minn.St. 628.10; State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 172, 21 N.W.2d 480, 491. In order to meet the prescribed standard, even under our present more liberal criminal pleading, it must be clear from the charge what crime the defendant is alleged to have committed.
The fault in the instant case constitutes more than a mere irregularity, or misnomer of the crime. E.g., State v. Howard, 66 Minn. 309, 68 N.W. 1096, 34 L.R.A. 178. While it is true that the particular facts alleged in the description or charge of the indictment control, State v. Farrington, 59 Minn. 147, 60 N.W. 1088, 28 L.R.A. 395; State v. Meany, 262 Minn. 491, 115 N.W.2d 247, and that the description in the charge here clearly indicates a gross misdemeanor was committed, i.e., a violation of Minn.St. 613.76 (), the limited claim of the prosecution was that defendant was guilty of a felony under § 613.09.
One may not be tried for one crime and convicted of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Winckler
...theory of the case and is now bound by that election. State v. Sudrala, 79 S.D. 587, 116 N.W.2d 243 (1962); see also State v. Wurdemann, 265 Minn. 92, 120 N.W.2d 317 (1963). However, the essence of the crime charged is still an assault with a dangerous weapon. The allegation of assault by s......
-
State v. Outka
...caption of the information contains errors, it is the body of the information that defines the charged crime. See State v. Wurdemann, 265 Minn. 92, 120 N.W.2d 317, 319 (1963); State v. Bossart, 62 N.D. 11, 241 N.W. 78, 81 (1932); State v. McIntyre, 59 Iowa 267, 13 N.W. 287, 288 (1882). Beca......
-
State v. Clark
...defendant pled guilty to one offense and, because of the existence of a defect in the information, or in the proof as in State v. Wurdemann, 265 Minn. 92, 120 N.W.2d 317, was convicted of a different offense, thereby exposing him to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. The record ......
-
Cuypers v. State
...subsequent prosecution for the same offense." State v. Mullen, 577 N.W.2d 505, 510 n. 6 (Minn.1998) (quoting State v. Wurdemann, 265 Minn. 92, 94, 120 N.W.2d 317, 318 (1963) (alterations in original)). When conduct constitutes more than one offense, "each such offense may be charged in the ......