Walters v. Platt
| Decision Date | 06 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 98758,98758 |
| Citation | 158 A.2d 255,22 Conn.Supp. 1 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Sarah WALTERS v. Edward PLATT, High Sheriff, et al. |
Ganim & Ganim, Bridgeport, for plaintiff.
Lorin W. Willis, State's Attorney, Bridgeport, for defendants.
In response to a writ of habeas corpus issued by this court against the high sheriff, his chief deputy and the coroner of the county of Fairfield, the prisoner, Wallace Mack Walters, was produced in this court on February 21, 1956. The return of the defendants sets forth in part that Walters was held in custody by virtue of a mittimus issued by the Superior Court for the county of Fairfield on February 20, 1956, following an arrest of said Walters upon a bench warrant issued by said Superior Court on that date, which averment was admitted by the plaintiff, acting in behalf of said prisoner. The return also stated that Walters had been arrested and held under a coroner's warrant which had been withdrawn on February 20, 1956, when Walters was arrested upon the bench warrant aforesaid, of which matter plaintiff pleaded she had no knowledge, leaving the defendants to their proof. The bench warrant with attached information and the mittimus were in evidence at the hearing. The prisoner will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff.
The gist of the plaintiff's claim is that the instant bench warrant is void because it was issued before an indictment by a grand jury was found, that the mittimus upon which it was based is consequently invalid and thus that his detention is illegal. Plaintiff concedes that a bench warrant in a capital case may be issued by the Superior Court under § 54-43 of the General Statutes after a grand jury indictment.
It is not disputed that at the time the bench warrant was issued, no grand jury had yet been summoned, nor any grand jury hearing held, nor any indictment for murder found against the plaintiff. A coroner's hearing begun February 11 was completed February 20, 1956, the date upon which the bench warrant was issued; the state's attorney's information connected with it accused the plaintiff of murder in the first degree.
It is not disputed that unless the bench warrant is valid the mittimus would be void. The bench warrant having been issued under authority of § 54-43 of the General Statutes, the principal question is whether under its provisions a bench warrant may be issued for the apprehension of a person in a capital case before a grand jury indictment is found against him upon such a crime.
An examination of the question requires a recognition of the difference between an arrest and an arraignment. 'An arrest in criminal cases is the apprehending, or detaining the person in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime.' 2 Swift, Digest, p. 387; see Ryan v. Ebecke, 102 Conn. 12, 18, 128 A. 14, 40 A.L.R. 88; 6 C.J.S. Arrest § 1, p. 570; 4 Am.Jur. 7, § 4, n. 13. 'Arraignment is calling the prisoner to the bar of the court to answer to the matter charged in the indictment or information.' 2 Swift, Digest, p. 396. It includes putting the person to plea to learn whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. Ibid; Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625, 637, 16 S.Ct. 952, 40 L.Ed. 1097; United States v. McKnight, D.C., 112 F. 982, 983.
It appears to this court that legislative sanction for the issuance of the bench warrant in the present case is found in § 54-43 of the General Statutes, notwithstanding no previous indictment had occurred. The express language of its first sentence permits a bench warrant to issue for the arrest of the person complained against: 'Upon the representation of any state's attorney that he has reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed within his jurisdiction * * *.' It expressly precludes the fixing of the bond for appearance in a capital case and does not prohibit the issuance of such a bench warrant before any indictment. The express language of its second sentence provides for the bringing forthwith of the prisoner arrested upon such bench warrant before the clerk in order that 'if the offense charged in such bench warrant and information is not bailable, such clerk * * * shall issue a mittimus committing such person to the jail * * * until he is discharged by due course of law.' This language appears sufficiently comprehensive to cover the instant matter.
It seems to the court, however, that the history of this section lends further support to this interpretation of it and to its applicability in a capital case for the issuance of the bench warrant before an indictment of the grand jury. Of the two sentences comprising § 54-43, the first had its origin in 1947 and the second in 1907. A principal purpose of the enactment of the first sentence was to permit the issuance of a bench warrant in a capital case before an indictment was found.
Before 1907, the issuance of bench warrants for the arrest of an accused in noncapital cases based upon informations of the state's attorney and in capital cases after grand jury indictment was part of the established practice of our criminal procedure. 'The attornies for the state may * * * make information for crimes: but they usually exhibit informations to the superior * * * court, for crimes cognizable by them: and in such cases, and also when an indictment is found by the grand jury against a person who has not been apprehended, it is the duty of the courts to order the clerks to issue warrants to apprehend the persons so informed against, or indicted.' 2 Swift, Digest, p. 387; see State v. Fox, 83 Conn. 286, 294, 76 A. 302; State v. Keena, 64 Conn. 212, 216, 29 A. 470; State v. Carroll, 97 Conn. 598, 604, 117 A. 694.
Chapter 231, Public Acts 1907, dealing with prosecutions based upon information of a state's attorney and with capital cases after indictment, provided how bail should be taken for persons under bench warrant arrest of the Superior Court. Rev.1918, § 6613. Apparently its purpose was to provide for the procedure of admitting a person to bail or, if the offense was not bailable, of committing him to jail between the time of the arrest and the detention in jail to await trial. This intent of the legislature gains emphasis when considered in view of the existence then of § 1489 of the Revision of 1902, providing for 'Bail when and how taken' as to a person 'detained in jail for trial for an offense not punishable with death.' So far as pertinent to the instant case, the provisions of the 1907 enactment continued without material change until 1947, when § 1439i of the 1947 Cumulative Supplement added what is now the first sentence of § 54-43. The title of § 1439i, 'Procedure on issuance of bench warrants,' was shortened to 'Bench warrant' as appears in § 54-43. Since the issuance of bench warrants based on informations in noncapital cases, and after indictment in capital cases, already had been an established procedure, the addition of the first sentence of § 54-43 in 1947 would have had little if any significance except to authorize arrests in capital cases on Superior Court bench warrants before a grand jury indictment.
That the legislature would intend such power to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Reincke
..."`inquest' made to determine the existence of probable cause, and to discharge the accused if none exists." Walters v. Platt, 22 Conn.Supp. 1, 158 A.2d 255, 258 (Sup.Ct.1956). The finding of probable cause is not final and it cannot be used against an accused on the trial before the Superio......
-
State v. Barles
...made upon information received from others. General Statutes § 54-43; State v. Chin Lung, 106 Conn. 701, 720, 139 A. 91; Walters v. Platt, 22 Conn.Sup. 1, 158 A.2d 255. The arrest made under the bench warrant is the arrest upon which the information in the present case is based. General Sta......
-
State v. Thrall, 1114
...arrest in a criminal case is the apprehension or detention of a person to answer to an alleged or suspected crime. Walters v. Platt, 22 Conn.Sup. 1, 3, 158 A.2d 255 (1956). "A criminal is arrested to secure his custody and to keep him to respond to sentence if convicted .... Presumably the ......
-
State v. Stallings
...the present statute, in murder cases has been sustained in a well-reasoned and substantiated decision of this court. Walters v. Platt, 22 Conn.Sup. 1, 158 A.2d 255. General Statutes § 54-76a only regulates procedure in probable cause hearings in the Circuit Court. This statute had its origi......