Court Opinion

ID: 9562196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:23:25.853503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:14.922269
License: Public Domain

MOISE, Justice, and SPIESS, Chief Judge, Court of Appeals (concurring in part and dissenting in part). Being of the opinion that the majority has undertaken to review the actions of the district court acting as a committing magistrate as on an appeal, and has thereby-fallen into error, we express our dissent from the refusal of the court to make the writ of habeas corpus permanent as to petitioners Juan Valdez, Tobias Leyba, Reies Lopez Tijerina and Baltazar Apodaca, and to admit them to bail. Sections 22-11-23 and 22-11-24, N.M.S. A. 1953, are referred to by the majority, but not quoted. The two sections read: “22-11-23. Hereafter all persons to whom bail has been denied or who are confined for failure to give bail, may have the benefit of a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of being admitted to bail or having the bail reduced, and the court or judge shall, upon habeas corpus, review the proceedings or action of a committing magistrate.” “22-11-24. When an application is made before any authority authorized by law to issue such writs of habeas corpus it shall be the duty of such officers to issue a writ of certiorari commanding the committing-magistrate forthwith to send to said officers a full and complete transcript of all- his proceedings had thereof, and the said officer upon the return of such writ shall proceed to examine the case de novo and either commit to jail, discharge or recognize such person to appear before the district court as the case may require.” The review of the “proceedings or action” of the committing magistrate referred to in § 22-11-23 is to be a de novo examination, not an appellate review. This was held in Ex parte Simpson, 37 N. M. 453, 24 P.2d 291 (1933), a case wherein petitioner had been charged with murder in the first degree, a capital offense, and had been committed by the magistrate without bail. Habeas corpus was denied by the district judge, and thereafter sought in the supreme court. The only evidence before the court was that taken before the examining magistrate. The court stated clearly that in such a proceeding, it sat “not as a reviewing court, but in the exercise of our original jurisdiction, not superior to the district courts, but co-ordinate.” It stated further that, in considering the record: “* * * this court weighs the evidence and passes upon its conflicts, as a trial court, not in the manner of the application of the substantial evidence rule, but whether we would be justified in our conscience as a trial court in sustaining a verdict of murder in the first degree when returned by a jury.” That the majority has not adopted this approach is evident from the statement that, “Our review of the record convinces us that the determination by the magistrate that the proof against these four defendants was evident or the presumption great is substantially supported by the evidence.” An examination of this record, being all the proof before us, in our opinion does not disclose such a state of circumstances as would justify us when acting as a trial court in sustaining a conviction of a capital offense, if such a verdict were returned by a jury based thereon. This being true, we must register our dissent from the denial of bail to the four named petitioners. For fear of possibly prejudicing the trial of this case in some manner, we refrain from any detailing of the facts disclosed by the record, or any discussion of when an offense which might under certain circumstances be capital would not be so considered in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the right to bail is the issue. However, see In re Losasso, 15 Colo. 163, 24 P. 1080 (1890); Ford v. Dilley, 174 Iowa 243, 156 N.W. 513 (1916); Holland v. Asher, 314 S.W.2d 947 (Ky.1958); Day v. Cau-dill, 300 S.W.2d 45 (Ky.1957); State v. Konigsberg, 33 N.J. 367, 164 A.2d 740, 89 A.L.R.2d 345 (1960) ; Application of Corbo, 54 N.J.Super. 575, 149 A.2d 828, cert. denied, Carbo v. Donahue, 29 N.J. 465, 149 A.2d 859 (1959); In re Thomas, 20 Okl. 167, 93 P. 980 (1908). We would add a word that while we agree with the majority in the conclusion that the other petitioners should be admit-, ted to bail, the proper basis for ordering it would have been that discussed above as to the four.