Ex parte Bull

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1871 No. No. 3,130Published

Before: Crockett, Rhodes, Wallace

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a prisoner cannot be detained after a grand jury fails to indict unless 'good cause' is shown, and a mere recommendation by the grand jury to hold the prisoner is not sufficient 'good cause' to justify further detention.

Issues

Whether a commitment order failing to name the victim is sufficient to justify detention.
Whether a court may continue to hold a prisoner after a grand jury fails to indict based solely on the grand jury's recommendation.

Disposition. Petitioner discharged

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Grand Jury seem, in this instance, to have assumed the exercise of the discretion which belonged alone to the Court, and the Court seems to have made the order in mere deference to the expressed opinion of the Grand Jury”

Synopsis

Commitment by a Justice oe the Peace—Discharge.—A commitment by a Justice of the Peace holding a party to appear before a Grand Jury to answer upon a charge of murder, must state the name of the person alleged to have been murdered. But the omission of such name is not such a defect as will entitle the accused to be discharged on habeas corpus.

Discharge for Pailure to Indict.—Where a party who has been held to answer upon a criminal charge is not indicted by the Grand Jury at the term of Court next after his commitment, he is entitled to be discharged, unless good cause be shown for his further detention.

Good Cause for Detention of Party Accused of Crime.—The facts constituting good cause for the detention of a party not indicted at the next term, must, in a great measure, be left to the discretion of the Court, to be determined by the particular circumstances of each case; and their sufficiency, or insufficiency, cannot be examined by the Supreme Court through the instrumentality of a writ of habeas corpus.

Insufficient Cause fob Detaining a Prisoner.—The mere recommendation of a Grand Jury, that such party be detained to answer before another Grand Jury, is not of itself good cause for his detention.

Presumption .as to Discretion of Court.—Where the record shows that the accused was detained upon the recommendation of the Grand Jury alone, the usual presumption that the discretion of the Court was exercised upon sufficient grounds, cannot be indulged.

Opinion — Wallace

By the Court, Wallace, J.: It appears by the petition and return to the writ, that the petitioner is detained in custody by the Sheriff of El Dorado County:

1. By virtue of an order of commitment in the following words:

“ State of California, County of El Dorado. The People of the State of California, to the Sheriff' of the County of El Dorado: An order having this day been made by me, that Peter Frederick Bull, alias Peter Wilson, be held to answer upon a charge of murder committed on the 12th day of October, A. D. 1871, at Placerville Township, you are hereby commanded to receive him into your custody, and detain him until he be legally discharged.

“Witness my hand officially, at Placerville, this 24th day of October, A. D. 1871.

“L. D. Marks,

“Justice of the Peace.”

[1982]. By virtue of certain proceedings had in the County Court of El Dorado County: These proceedings show that a Grand Jury was regularly impaneled in that Court on the sixth day of November, and sworn to inquire into and true presentment make of all public offenses triable within the County of El Dorado, of which they might obtain legal evidence; the petitioner, as being a person held to answer, and charged with the commission of a public offense, appearing under the direction of the Court, and interposing a challenge to the panel, which was overruled.

The Grand Jury thus impaneled having entered upon their duties, and subsequently having made their final report to the Court, and not having found an indictment against the petitioner, were discharged from further service. The petitioner, thereupon, moved the Court “ that he be discharged from custody, on the ground that the Grand Jury just discharged had failed to find any indictment against him.” This motion was resisted by the District Attorney, who presented to the Court a recommendation of the Grand Jury just discharged, which recommendation was indorsed upon the warrant of commitment above recited, and was -in the following words: “We, the Grand Jury, beg leave to refer the case of Peter Frederick Bull, alias Peter Wilson, to the next Grand Jury, and we recommend that he be held to answer before the next Grand Jury of El Dorado, County. H. B. Newell, Foreman of the Grand Jury. George M. Norton, Jr., Secretary.” The record then proceeds as follows: “ Thereupon the Court, without further or other cause than said recommendation being shown by the District Attorney, denied the motion of said Wilson to be discharged from custody, and granted the motion of the District Attorney; and it is ordered by the Court that the case of the said Peter Wilson be referred to the next Grand Jury, and that he be remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of said county, to await the action of the next Grand Jury.”

Ex parte Bull

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Wallace

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Concurrence — Rhodescrockett

AI Brief