Case Title: Ex Parte Williams

Citation: 265 P.2d 359, 58 N.M. 37

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1954-01-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
265 P.2d 359 (1954) 58 N.M. 37 Ex Parte WILLIAMS. WILLIAMS v. McADOO, Sheriff. No. 5713. Supreme Court of New Mexico. January 8, 1954. *360 Robert W. Ward, Lovington, C. M. Neal, Hobbs, for relator. Richard H. Robinson, Atty. Gen., W. F. Kitts, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Fred M. Standley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent. COMPTON, Justice. This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus instituted on relation of Jesse Williams, seeking discharge from the custody of respondent, J.G. McAdoo, sheriff of Lea County. An information was filed in Lea County against relator, the pertinent provisions of which read: A plea of not guilty was entered. A jury was impaneled and sworn to try the issues presented and evidence was given. After the state rested, relator moved the court to withdraw from the consideration of the jury the charge of murder for the reason murder was not charged. The motion was sustained, after which, relator further moved for an instructed verdict as to the charge of manslaughter because of the insufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict. This motion was overruled. At this point a recess was granted relator for the purpose of determining whether he would offer any evidence. When court reconvened, the district attorney moved for a dismissal of the information on the ground *361 that it failed to charge an offense. The motion was sustained and the cause dismissed over the strenuous objection of relator. Subsequently, an information was filed against relator charging him with the murder of Johnnie Lee Boyd. He was remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Lea County, where he is now detained without bail. To the latter information, relator interposed a plea of former jeopardy and autrefois acquit. The plea was overruled and he is here asserting constitutional grounds for his discharge. Since the trial court decided that the first information did not charge murder, that became the law of the case. Right or wrong, it must control our further consideration of the question presented. Marchant v. McDonald, 37 N.M. 171, 20 P.2d 276. Even if wrong, the relator cannot complain since the trial court's ruling alone affords him the jeopardy relied upon to secure his discharge. The decisive question, therefore, is whether an unlawful killing was charged. If manslaughter was charged, relator was put in jeopardy and he should be discharged; if not, the writ should be dismissed. The object of an indictment or information is first to furnish an accused with a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his defense and to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal against a subsequent prosecution for the same offense; and second, that the court may be informed as to the facts alleged so it may determine whether the facts are sufficient to support a conviction, if one should be had. State v. Roy, 40 N.M. 397, 60 P.2d 646, 110 A.L.R. 1. The charge meets the test prescribed by § 42-607, New Mexico Statutes Annotated, which reads: The information itself is replete with words and terms which leaves no doubt that an unlawful killing was charged. The word "charge" denotes a wrongful act, subjecting the person charged to criminal prosecution in the name of the state. As used in our criminal pleadings, the words "charge" and "accuse" are used interchangeably, and are synonymous. § 42-606 and § 42-607, New Mexico Statutes Annotated. The term "shooting her with a gun, contrary to § 41-2404"; also the words, "wilfully", "premeditately" and "deliberately" are used. The word "wilfully" means "without lawful excuse." Miller v. State, 3 Okl.Cr. 575, 107 P. 948. The words "deliberately" and "premeditately" as employed in the information, import an intentional killing without lawful excuse. Finally, reference is made to the specific statute, § 41-2404, defining the crime of murder, manslaughter being an included offense. And in determining the validity or sufficiency of an indictment or information regard shall be had to such reference. § 42-607(2), rules of criminal procedure. See Brannan v. State, 44 Tex.Cr.R. 399, 72 S.W. 184; Utterback v. State, 153 Ind. 545, 55 N.E. 420; People v. Frey, 112 Mich. 251, 70 N.W. 548. That the trial court shared the view reached by us is apparent. We quote: Assuming the court has jurisdiction, and prior proceedings are valid, jeopardy attaches when issue is joined *363 upon an indictment or information, and the jury is impaneled and sworn to try the cause. U.S. v. Aurandt, 15 N.M. 292, 107 P. 1064, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 1181. Therefore, relator was put in jeopardy in the original proceeding and was entitled to a verdict which would have been a bar to a new prosecution unless it should subsequently appear the verdict could not have been rendered because of some overruling necessity which compelled a mistrial, such as illness or death of the judge or juror, or the inability of the jury to agree, etc. The principle is well settled, an acquittel of a lesser offense bars a subsequent prosecution for a greater offense where the lesser offense is included in the greater. State v. Goodson, 54 N.M. 184, 217 P.2d 262. The order of dismissal operated as a judgment of acquittal of the crime of manslaughter as well as all higher degrees of homicide. The writ should be made absolute and the relator discharged. It Is So Ordered. McGHEE, C. J., and SADLER, LUJAN and SEYMOUR, JJ., concur.