Court Opinion

ID: 6739576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 23:20:54.893653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:55.036684
License: Public Domain

Birdzell, J.
(dissenting). In my opinion the application shows no abuse of discretion whatever in removing the cause to Ramsey county for trial. On the contrary, on the showing made before the district court, it appears prima facie to have been a very proper exercise of discretion. Upon the argument in this court, facts were presented by affidavit which were not before the district judge at all, as they occurred subsequent to the original application. It also appeared upon oral argument in this court that one objection the defendant had to the order entered in the district court was that he might be forced to trial in Ramsey county before he had had an adequate opportunity to prepare. In other words, he desired some delay. If sufficient cause for continuance existed, it could, of course,- be presented to the court sitting in Ramsey county. However, since the defendant himself desired some delay, the exigency, in my. opinion, is clearly not such as to justify this court in an original exercise of discretion in regard to the changing of the place of trial based upon facts which were not before the district judge. This is legislation, nothing more nor less. It is not an exercise of the power of superintending control. It is an original exercise of discretion. The statute requires the application to be made before the district judge, and, in my opinion, this court is not justifed in ignoring this statute and ordering a change in the place of trial upon facts which were never presented to the district judge. *8The matter should have been remanded to the district court for such, action as was deemed appropriate in the light of the facts presented here. This would occasion no delay. Then, if either party should desire a review by this court of the exercise of the legal discretion vested in the district court, it could be promptly secured. The whole matter could readily be accomplished in less than a week. Meanwhile the defendant could be preparing for the trial for which his counsel says he is not as-yet prepared.
The action of the majority I regard as an implied criticism on the instrumentalities of justice in this state, in which I am unwilling to join..