Houghton v. State

207 N.W.2d 63, 296 Minn. 494, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1244
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedApril 27, 1973
Docket43092
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 207 N.W.2d 63 (Houghton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Houghton v. State, 207 N.W.2d 63, 296 Minn. 494, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1244 (Mich. 1973).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On May 21, 1924, a jury found petitioner guilty of murder in the second degree. He appeals from an order denying him postconviction relief. We affirm.

Petitioner asserts, among other things, that his confession was involuntary and that, in submitting that issue to the jury, the trial court failed to follow the procedures prescribed by Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368, 84 S. Ct. 1774, 12 L. ed. 2d 908, 1 A. L. R. 3d 1205 (1964). Error is also alleged in the conduct of the lineup and in the court’s charge on the presumption of intentional homicide.

In State ex rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 551, 141 N. W. 2d 3, 12 (1965), we observed that new trials in criminal cases will be granted more readily where claims of constitutional infringement are promptly called to the attention of reviewing courts “so that a second trial, if ordered, can be had before memories fade or witnesses disappear.” Here, almost 50 years have elapsed since the crime was committed and defendant convicted. In April 1963, petitioner was released from *495 the state hospital where he had been confined for 36 years and was transferred to another state hospital. In November of that year he was paroled and thereafter released from the hospital. In April 1967, he was unconditionally discharged from parole. He initiated these proceedings in September 1970.

The record indicates that none of the witnesses who testified at the trial, except petitioner, is now available. We are of the opinion that, if the matter has not been rendered moot by petitioner’s unconditional discharge, it was proper for the trial court to deny relief where over 46 years elapsed before petitioner asserted his rights. Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Carlton v. State
816 N.W.2d 590 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2012)
Stutelberg v. State
741 N.W.2d 867 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2007)
Bailey v. State
414 N.W.2d 503 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1987)
State v. Larson
409 N.W.2d 63 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
207 N.W.2d 63, 296 Minn. 494, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houghton-v-state-minn-1973.