State ex rel. Gilbert v. Carver

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State ex rel. Gilbert v. Carver

172 N.W. 771, 143 Minn. 27, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 435

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 6, 1919

DocketNo. 21,456

StatusPublished

This text of 172 N.W. 771 (State ex rel. Gilbert v. Carver) 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

State ex rel. Gilbert v. Carver, 172 N.W. 771, 143 Minn. 27, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 435 (Mich. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The relator was arrested upon a warrant charging him with the crime of drunkenness, and on the following day was taken before the justice for arraignment. The charge as contained in the warrant was then read to him and' he entered a plea of not guilty, and at the same time stated to the court that he was ready for trial and that he did not want a lawyer. The witnesses, both upon behalf of the prosecution and of the defendant, [28]*28were called, sworn and gave testimony. After considering the evidence the court found and adjudged the defendant to he guilty of the crime as charged and that he he committed to the common jail of the county for the term of 60 days, and issued a mittimus in due form in accordance therewith. The relator was then committed to the common jail of the county. On the sixth day of May appellant sued out a writ of habeas corpus to secure his discharge from custody, upon the ground that the commitment and his detention thereunder were illegal and void and that he was committed without his constitutional right to a'trial by jury. The return of the respondent was that he detained the relator by virtue of the mittimus. After a hearing before the court commissioner upon the petition for the writ and respondent’s return, the writ was discharged and the relator appealed.

It is not contended but that the justice had jurisdiction at the commencement of the action. The contention of the relator is that it was the duty of the justice to impanel a jury after the plea was entered, for the purpose of the trial of the accused, and that his failure so to do amounted to a denial to him of the right to trial by jury and that the court lost jurisdiction thereby. With this contention we are unable to agree. The failure on the part of a justice of the peace to impanel a jury to try a misdemeanor does not oust the court of jurisdiction, but at most renders the judgment erroneous, which question cannot be raised on habeas corpus. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 4129.

It is well settled that, where trial by jury may be waived, the denial of a jury trial is a mere error not affecting the jurisdiction and does not entitle the prisoner to be discharged on habeas corpus. 21 Cyc. 305, § 12, and cases cited; State v. Woodling, 53 Minn. 142, 54 N. W. 1068. See also 21 Cyc. 298; State v. Riley, 109 Minn. 434, 124 N. W. 11; State v. Kinmore, 54 Minn. 135, 55 N. W. 830, 40 Am. St. 305. The order appealed from is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The relator was arrested upon a warrant charging him with the crime of drunkenness, and on the following day was taken before the justice for arraignment. The charge as contained in the warrant was then read to him and' he entered a plea of not guilty, and at the same time stated to the court that he was ready for trial and that he did not want a lawyer. The witnesses, both upon behalf of the prosecution and of the defendant, [28]*28were called, sworn and gave testimony. After considering the evidence the court found and adjudged the defendant to he guilty of the crime as charged and that he he committed to the common jail of the county for the term of 60 days, and issued a mittimus in due form in accordance therewith. The relator was then committed to the common jail of the county. On the sixth day of May appellant sued out a writ of habeas corpus to secure his discharge from custody, upon the ground that the commitment and his detention thereunder were illegal and void and that he was committed without his constitutional right to a'trial by jury. The return of the respondent was that he detained the relator by virtue of the mittimus. After a hearing before the court commissioner upon the petition for the writ and respondent’s return, the writ was discharged and the relator appealed.

It is not contended but that the justice had jurisdiction at the commencement of the action. The contention of the relator is that it was the duty of the justice to impanel a jury after the plea was entered, for the purpose of the trial of the accused, and that his failure so to do amounted to a denial to him of the right to trial by jury and that the court lost jurisdiction thereby. With this contention we are unable to agree. The failure on the part of a justice of the peace to impanel a jury to try a misdemeanor does not oust the court of jurisdiction, but at most renders the judgment erroneous, which question cannot be raised on habeas corpus. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 4129.

It is well settled that, where trial by jury may be waived, the denial of a jury trial is a mere error not affecting the jurisdiction and does not entitle the prisoner to be discharged on habeas corpus. 21 Cyc. 305, § 12, and cases cited; State v. Woodling, 53 Minn. 142, 54 N. W. 1068. See also 21 Cyc. 298; State v. Riley, 109 Minn. 434, 124 N. W. 11; State v. Kinmore, 54 Minn. 135, 55 N. W. 830, 40 Am. St. 305. The order appealed from is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 N.W. 771, 143 Minn. 27, 1919 Minn. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-gilbert-v-carver-minn-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack