People v. Bossert

Criminal Law—Eight of Defendant to Compel Attendance of Witnesses—Befusal by Court—Prejudicial Error.—Where the defendant, at the commencement of the trial, having learned that some of his witnesses were not present, moved the court for compulsory process to compel their attendance from an adjoining county, upon affidavits showing the facts and the materiality of their testimony, it was prejudicial error for the court to refuse such compulsory process, and compel the defendant to proceed to trial without the personal attendance of his witnesses, merely because the district attorney offered to allow their testimony taken upon a previous trial to be read, which offer the court allowed merely in the interest of economy.

Id.—Superiority of Oral Testimony of Witnesses.—The testimony of witnesses given in court is much more effective and far superior to that read to the jury in the form of a deposition. As much may be frequently collected from the manner in which the evidence is delivered as from the matter of it.

Id.—Constitutional Eight to Compel Attendance.—On account of the superior value of such oral testimony to the accused, and in order to cure a defect in the common law in this regard, the constitution of this state, in section 13 of article I thereof—like the constitutions of nearly all other states of the Union—provides that defendants in criminal cases shall “have the process of the court to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf.” It would ill accord with the spirit of that right, when the witnesses are within the reach of the process of the court, if the defendant is compelled to take a mere written statement as the equivalent of the personal appearance contemplated by the use of the process guaranteed by the constitution.

Id.—Reasonable Time Allowed to Secure Attendance—Absence of Bad Faith.—The defendant, having a constitutional right to have his witnesses examined in court, in the absence of a showing that the motion was made in bad faith, was entitled to a reasonable time to secure their attendance.

Id,—Diligence and Good Faith Shown—Constitutional Eight Infringed.—Where the defendant had regularly subpoenaed the witnesses in question, and their testimony was material and important to him, by the ruling of the court that he was not entitled to the process of the court to an adjoining county to compel their attendance, and forcing the defendant to submit his case to the jury without the benefit of their oral testimony, it is clear that the defendant was deprived of a constitutional right for which a new trial must be granted.