Ex parte Edgar
Before: Garoutte, Henshaw
Synopsis
Habeas Corpus—Fedebal Question—Appeal fboh Fedebal Coubt—Stay of Pboceedinqs.—Where a petition to a circuit or district court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a prisoner in the state’s prison, who is under penalty of death for murder by sentence of a state court, presents a federal question, an appeal to the supreme court of the United States from an order either remanding the petitioner or refusing him a writ, stays all further proceedings by the state courts or by the state authorities pending the appeal, and by operation of section 766 of the United States Revised Statutes, any such further proceedings, until the determination of the appeal, are null and void.
Id.—Validity of Proceeding by Information—Question under Fedebal Constitution.—The question whether a proceeding by information, instead of indictment, is in violation of the constitution of the United States, is a federal question; and is none the less such because former cases have been decided by the supreme court of the United States contrary to the contention of one who raises such question by petition to a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus, and by appeal to the supreme court of the United States from an order denying the writ.
Id.—Stay—Merit of Appeal not to be Considered—Allowance of Appeal —Proof of Federal Question.—Where a federal question is presented, upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in a federal court, and an appeal has been taken from an order denying the writ, it is the appeal, and not the merit of the appeal, which operates as a stay; and the very fact that an appeal has been allowed by the federal court, after deciding the question presented pursuant to previous decisions of the supreme court of the United States, is equivalent to a declaration of that court that a federal question was presented, and the appeal allowed must operate as a stay.
Id.—Void Contempt Proceedings against Acting Warden of State’s Prison—Discharge upon Habeas Corpus.—The acting warden of the state’s prison is not in contempt of the authority of the state court ordering the execution of a prisoner under sentence of death, in deferring such .execution pending an appeal to the supreme court of the United States from an order of. a district court of the United States refusing a writ of habeas corpus to the prisoner; and, if imprisoned for contempt for so doing by order of the state court, will be discharged upon habeas corpus.
Opinion — Henshaw
HENSHAW, J. John C. Edgar was adjudged guilty of contempt by the superior court of San Diego county, and was punished therefor by a fine of two hundred dollars, with the alternative of imprisonment. This hearing is under his application for a writ of habeas corpus.
The facts giving rise to the alleged contempt are the following: One Joseph Japhet Ebanks was convicted of murder in the first degree before the superior court of San Diego county, and, upon appeal to this court, the judgment of conviction and the order denying him a new trial were affirmed. Thereafter Ebanks was brought before the superior court of San Diego county, which pronounced its order, fixing the day of execution on the eighth day of October, 1897, within the walls .of the state prison at San Quentin. Pursuant to this order Ebanks was delivered to the custody of the warden of that institution. Upon the day fixed for his execution Ebanks made application to the district court of the United States in and for the northern district of California, praying for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was restrained of his liberty by W. E. Hale) warden of said prison, in violation of his rights under the constitution of the United States, and setting up certain facts in support of this allegation. The district court denied his petition, whereupon' he appealed from the order so denying his application, to the supreme court of the United States, and therewith petitioned said district court that his appeal be allowed, and that a transcript of the records, proceedings, and papers upon which said order was made be transmitted to the supreme court of the United States. The district court made its order allowing the appeal. Certified copies of all the papers in the matter of the application and of the appeal were served upon petitioner, John [125]C. Edgar, as acting warden of the state prison at San Quentin, the warden at that time being absent from the state of Califonnia. These papers were served upon Edgar before the execution and before the expiration of the time limited for the execution.
The acting warden was thus placed in a most trying and difficult position. He was called upon to decide at his peril whether or not Ebanks’ appeal to the supreme court of the United States operated to stay his hand as an executive officer of the state of California. If the appeal did operate as a stay, and he decided that it did not, and proceeded with the execution, he would be guilty of unlawfully taking the life of a human being. If, upon the other hand, the appeal did not operate as a stay, and he decided that it did so operate, he stood liable to be punished fox-contempt for violation of the order of the superior court of the state. In this clash of judicial authorities there was no court to which he could look for direction. It was incumbent upon him to make his own choice, unaided by the decision of any judicial tribunal. He concluded that the appeal of Ebanks operated to stay the hand of the state authorities, and therefore declined to execute the death warrant, whereupon he was cited before the superior coxxrt of San Diego county, and, upon a presentation of these facts, none of which is disputed, was adjudged guilty of contempt and punished therefor, as above set out.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)