Court Opinion

ID: 4724180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-12 02:50:03.830174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:07:45.699107
License: Public Domain

Dunbar, J.
(dissenting). — I dissent. I know of no provision of law, either statutory or constitutional, empowering the court to authorize the disbursement of public funds to aid a defendant to prosecute his appeal to the supreme court. Section 22, art. 1, of the state constitution, relied upon by counsel for appellant, in my judgment does not touch this case. That section simply guarantees to the accused the right of appeal in any case; that is, provides that the right of appeal in criminal cases shall not be taken away by statute; and the final judgment referred to in said section refers to final judgment in the superior courts. Such was the construction placed upon it in Stowe v. State, ante, p. 124, decided by this court at its last term. The payment by the state of the costs of appeal in a criminal action, where the defendant is not able to pay, might be a humane policy for the law to adopt; but as the law-making power has not seen fit to adopt such a policy, it is not within the inherent power of the court to grant the relief asked for.