Court Opinion

ID: 9535347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:48:18.340576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:13.693965
License: Public Domain

Gilkison, J.
Concurring. I concur with the statement in the opinion as follows:
*261‘.‘Appellant asserts that he was denied rights under the Indiana Constitution, and for this reason we will consider his appeal on the merits.”
This has been the law in Indiana for many years. It was well expressed by Richman J., in Wilson v. State (1943), 222 Ind. 63, at page 78, 51 N. E. 2d 848, at page 854, thus:
“. . . But in a case involving an appellant’s life or liberty we may not ignore prejudicial errors affecting his constitutional rights when, as here, they are clearly and adequately presented in appellant’s brief with supporting bill of exceptions. The procedural rules that would prevent their consideration must give way to the fundamental principles of due process.” See also, Sweet v. State (1954) 233 Ind. 160, 117 N. E. 2nd 745 747. Vonderschmidt v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 439, 443, 81 N. E. 2d 782, and cases there cited.
However, I cannot agree with some other parts of the opinion for the following reasons, to-wit:
This is a habeas corpus proceeding. When such a proceeding is ready for trial the statute provides as follows:
“The court or judge shall thereupon proceed, in a summary way, to hear and determine the cause; and if no legal cause be shown for the restraint or for the continuation thereof shall discharge the party.” (Our italics). Sec. 3-1917, Burns’ 1946 Repl.
The evident purpose of this statute is to have the cause disposed of expeditiously — “speedily, and without delay.” Art. 1, Sec. 12, Indiana Constitution.
After trial, habeas corpus proceedings may be appealed to this court by virtue of the statute providing for appeals from interlocutory orders. Clause Fourth, Sec. 2-3218, Burns’ 1946 Replacement. Appeals in *262habeas corpus proceedings in this State have been .taken under this statute for more than 100 years last past. See Yol. 2, Revised Statutes, 1852, section 576, page 142. There are cases in Indiana that suggest an appeal may be taken from a judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding under the final judgment statute — 2-3201, Burns’ 1946 Repl. — notably Baird, Sheriff v. Nagel (1924), 194 Ind. 87, 91, 142 N. E. 9, in which, among other things, this court said: “The right of the state to appeal from a final order discharging a prisoner in habeas corpus proceedings has been held to exist in many other states, but it has not been directly passed on in this state . . . .” But the opinion then notes that the state was not made a party in the case, and therefore it had no right to appeal the case.
Since all habeas corpus cases must be tried summarily (Sec. 3-1917, Burns’ 1946 Repl., supra) by the circuit or superior courts, or by the judges of said courts, whether in term or vacation, and the writ shall be granted “without delay,” (Sec. 3-1905, Burns’ 1946 Repl.), it would be interesting to know what, if any, appealable interlocutory order any court or judge thereof could possibly make in any habeas corpus proceeding that might be brought.
So far as I can find, it has always been the law that,
“The procedure under which interlocutory orders are made does not contemplate motions for a new trial, and the statute providing for appeals from such orders contemplates only an exception to the order.” Goldsmith et al. v. City of Indianapolis et al. (1935), 208 Ind. 465, 466, 196 N. E. 525; Pisarski v. Glowiszyn (1941), 220 Ind. 128, 131, 41 N. E. 2d 358. Indianapolis Water Company v. Lux (1945), 224 Ind. 125, 129, 64 N. E. 2d 790.
“In an appeal of a habeas corpus proceeding the Supreme Court will weigh the evidence, whether conflicting or not, and pass upon it as a trial court.” Brown et al. v. The State (1897), 147 Ind. 28, 29, *26346 N. E. 34. Roney v. Rodgers, Sheriff (1920), 190 Ind. 368, 371, 130 N. E. 403. Luellen v. Younger (1923), 194 Ind. 411, 416, 133 N. E. 495. Ex parte Heffren, 27 Ind. 87, 89. Ex parte Moore, 30 Ind. 197, 200. Ex parte Sutherlin (1877), 56 Ind. 595, 596. Ex parte Walton (1881), 79 Ind. 600. Ex parte Kendall (1885), 100 Ind. 599, 600. Ex parte Richards (1885), 102 Ind. 260, 261, 1 N. E. 639. Jones et ux. v. Darnall (1885), 103 Ind. 569, 574, 2 N. E. 229. State ex rel. Smith, Sheriff v. Marion Circuit Court (1951), 230 Ind. 21, 24, 101 N. E. 2d 272.
In the case last cited above, Draper, J., speaking for the court, correctly stated thus:
“. . . If the defendant was aggrieved by the decision of the Criminal Court, he should have appealed to this court, where, the evidence, if brought here, would be weighed and passed upon in the manner that a trial court weighs and passes upon evidence, and this court would decide the issue accordingly.” (Authorities.)
I do not think it is material to the decision of this case whether the appeal is taken under clause four of Sec. 2-3218, Burns’ 1946 Repl., or under the appeals from final judgments statute, Sec. 2-3201. No motion for new trial is required under either statute, in order to have the evidence considered by this court in the appeal of habeas corpus cases.
It is not possible to correctly determine such an appeal without a careful consideration of the evidence by this court.