Title: Application of Williams
Citation: 193 N.W.2d 793
Docket Number: 10885
State: south-dakota
Issuer: south-dakota Supreme Court
Date: January 18, 1972

193 N.W.2d 793 (1972) Application of Porter WILLIAMS for writ of habeas corpus. No. 10885. Supreme Court of South Dakota. January 18, 1972. Robert L. O'Connor, Sioux Falls, for appellant. Gordon Mydland, Atty. Gen., Walter W. Andre, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for respondent. WINANS, Judge. The defendant was tried, convicted and sentenced to the State Penitentiary on a two-count information. Count I charged possession of a narcotic drug, to wit, Marijuana, and Count II charged a sale of a narcotic drug, to wit, Marijuana. Both counts were charged as violations of "Chapter 94 of the 1968 Session Laws" of the State of South Dakota. He was sentenced for unlawful possession to a term of five years, and to a term of ten years for illegal sale. Such sentences to run concurrently. Defendant appealed, and the judgment was affirmed. State v. Williams, 84 S.D. 547, 173 N.W.2d 889. While the appeal was pending, the defendant made application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and his release from imprisonment. The application was first heard by the Circuit Court of Minnehaha County on June 26, 1969, and because of the appeal then pending in the Supreme Court no final judgment on the Writ of Habeas Corpus was entered by the court. The Supreme Court entered its judgment on the appeal January 22, 1970, and thereafter adjourned hearings on the Habeas Corpus proceedings were had and culminated by the Circuit Court of Minnehaha County making its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and entering Judgment accordingly, on the 25th of August, 1970. The Judgment quashed the Writ, and this appeal by the defendant is from that Judgment. The assignments of error are rather numerous, but may be summarized as the lower court did at the hearing on the Writ. At the trial of the criminal charges the defendant did not demur to the information, nor, as was done in State v. Burchard, 1894, 4 S.D. 548, 57 N.W. 491, make any objection "to the introduction of any evidence under the indictment, upon `the ground that the facts stated in the same (information) do not constitute a public offense, and upon the further ground that the indictment (information) is indefinite and uncertain, and does not state facts that will enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.'" What counsel did at the trial was to move to dismiss both counts of the information upon the grounds that "marijuana is not a narcotic drug; that possession of and the selling of marijuana * * * would not constitute a violation of Chapter 94 of the Session Laws of 1968 as alleged in the information." Such contentions were decided adversely to the defendant in State v. Williams, supra. This court has held without deviation: The applicant for the Writ of Habeas Corpus, however, argues strongly, and it appears to be the primary question presented in this appeal, that Count II of the Information is fatally defective because it failed to identify the name of the alleged purchaser, and that this defect was not considered by the court in State v. Williams, supra. We hold against applicant on both these contentions. In order to present this clearly, it becomes necessary to make a short review of the appeal proceedings. Upon the appeal of State v. Williams, supra, the attorney for appellant Williams made the discovery that the assignment of error based upon failure to identify the name of the purchaser in Count II had been left out. The attorney's testimony on that point is in part as follows: The attorney for appellant upon such discovery petitioned the Supreme Court to include as an additional assignment of error "That Count II of the Information filed in this case was defective for the reason that it failed to disclose the name of the alleged purchaser." The assistant attorney general, assigned to the case, stated in writing to the court that no objection was made to including such additional assignment of error and stated, "It is my contention that the matter of this alleged error was assigned by Appellant and argued in Appellant's Brief and this office has also argued the question in Respondent's Brief". The presiding judge based on the petition and affidavit of petitioner Williams' attorney signed an order "Ordered that the additional assignment of error set *795 forth in the Petition will be considered by the Court as part of the appeal." We are not concerned with the procedural aspects of this way to make an assignment of error at this point. We simply state the record. The briefs before the Supreme Court, among other assignments, argued the lack of identity of the purchaser in Count II. After the decision in State v. Williams, supra, the applicant filed a petition for rehearing asserting that the Supreme Court had overlooked and failed to decide this question as to Count II, namely, that it was defective for the reason that it failed to allege the name of the alleged purchaser. The petition for rehearing was denied. In the decision of the court in State v. Williams, 84 S.D. 547, 173 N.W.2d 889, at page 893, the court said: The court in effect held that the lack of a named purchaser was not such a defect that it could be raised without having first been presented to the trial court. See State v. Thwing, 85 S.D. 351, 182 N.W.2d 308. In State v. Burchard, supra, at the trial, a witness having been sworn on the part of the state, defendant's counsel objected to the introduction of any evidence under the indictment upon "`the ground that the facts stated in the same do not constitute a public offense, and upon the further ground that the indictment is indefinite and uncertain, and does not state facts that will enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.'" The court in a later opinion, State v. Valentine, 7 S.D. 98, 63 N.W. 541, written by the author of the Burchard opinion, wrote further: In State v. Blue Fox Bar, Inc., 80 S.D. 565, 128 N.W.2d 561, this court stated: In the last three cases cited this court did not hold that the question of jurisdiction was the basis for the holding. Rather, it would appear that their holding in each instance, all on direct appeal, was based on the sufficiency of the information as measured by Article VI, § 7, of our Constitution, and SDCL 23-32-12 and 23-32-5. These provisions are set forth in Blue Fox Bar, Inc., supra. In Knewel v. Egan, 1925, 268 U.S. 442, 45 S. Ct. 522, 69 L. Ed. 1036, the Supreme Court of the United States in an opinion by Mr. Justice Stone, in a Habeas Corpus proceeding by a citizen of this state, held "It has been uniformly held by this court that the sufficiency of an indictment cannot be reviewed in habeas corpus proceedings. * * * A mere failure to allege venue, and thus to show affirmatively that the crime was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the cause, and the sufficiency of the indictment cannot be called in question upon habeas corpus. Even though an indictment thus drawn might have been found defective upon demurrer or writ of error, it is not so *796 fatal, upon its face, as to be open to collateral attack after trial and conviction." In 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 20, p. 462, it is written: The circuit court in its findings in this Habeas Corpus proceeding made this finding, which has ample support in the record: We agree. Further, no objection was made at the trial of the criminal action about the sufficiency of the information, except as we have heretofore set out, and certainly none made about the purchaser's name having been omitted. It is also interesting to note, though not particularly germane to the issue in our case in view of the liquor offenses in Burchard, Valentine, and Blue Fox Bar, Inc., supra, that there is considerable authority holding the absence of the name of the transferee of a narcotic or drug in an indictment is not fatally defective. Sanchez v. United States, 1965, 5 Cir., 341 F.2d 379, holds that the test of an indictment is whether it sufficiently identifies the offense, not whether it might have been more complete. In Aggers v. United States, 1966, 8 Cir., 366 F.2d 744, the court said "Aggers first ground for reversal is thus stated: `The Court erred in overruling Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the indictment in that it failed to inform the defendant Aggers of the alleged purchaser of the narcotics involved therein.' Such contention is devoid of merit." We have considered all of applicant Williams' contentions in this Habeas Corpus proceeding. The judgment quashing the writ is affirmed. HANSON, P. J., and BIEGELMEIER and WOLLMAN, JJ., concur. DOYLE, J., not participating.