Hurtado v. California

110 U.S. 516 (1884), argued 22–23 Jan. 1884, decided 3 Mar. 1884 by vote of 8 to 1; Matthews for the Court, Harlan in dissent. This case involved a provision in the constitution of California that authorized prosecutions for felonies by information, after examination by a magistrate, without indictment by a grand jury. The defendant, on the basis of information filed by district attorney, was tried for murder and sentenced to death. He argued on appeal that proceeding by information in capital cases violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, asserting that this clause incorporated the Fifth Amendment requirement of grand jury indictment in federal capital cases, thus making it binding upon the states (see Capital Punishment.) The Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could not logically encompass the specific procedural guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.

The defendant also contended that due process signified those settled usages and modes of proceeding existing in the common and statute law of England before the settlement of the American colonies, unless unsuited to colonial conditions. He claimed that proceeding by information in capital cases was not authorized by English or colonial law. The Court disagreed, holding that other procedures may be consonant with due process. The test that the Court adopted was that any legal proceeding, whether sanctioned by age or newly devised, which preserved the fundamental principles of liberty and justice lying at the base of American political institutions, must be deemed to constitute due process. In the Court's opinion, the California procedure did not violate these principles. (See Incorporation Doctrine.)

— Edgar Bodenheimer

Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). The issue in this case was whether a conviction for murder without grand jury indictment was a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State of California had provided a criminal procedure based merely on information or formal accusation by the prosecution. In 1884 the Supreme Court held that such conviction was not forbidden by the Constitution. In line with this principle, the Court in Twining v. New Jersey (1908) exempted the states from guaranteeing another Fifth Amendment civil liberty, freedom from compulsory self-incrimination.

Bibliography

Kelly, Alfred H., Winfred A. Harbison, and Herman Belz. The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development. 7th ed. New York: Norton, 1991.

An 1884 decision of the Supreme Court, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 4 S. Ct. 111, 28 L. Ed. 232, that held that states are not required to comply with the Fifth Amendment provision that a criminal prosecution be initiated by an indictment by a grand jury.

The constitution of California and various penal statutes provided for the prosecution of a person charged with an offense by information after a preliminary hearing before a magistrate with rights to counsel and to cross-examine witnesses, or by indictment with or without a preliminary hearing. In February 1882, the district attorney of Sacramento County filed an information against Joseph Hurtado, charging him with the murder of Jose Stuardo. Hurtado was arraigned, tried, convicted of the crime, and sentenced to death. He unsuccessfully appealed his conviction throughout state appellate courts and brought a writ of error before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Hurtado alleged that his conviction and sentence were void because they were obtained in violation of his rights to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. He was convicted and sentenced on the basis of an information, not an indictment or presentment by a grand jury as required by the Fifth Amendment and, therefore, was deprived by the state of his liberty without due process.

After reviewing English treatises and numerous cases construing the term due process of law, the Court affirmed Hurtado's conviction. Only persons accused of federal crimes are entitled to a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. The Court refused to declare the proceedings that led to Hurtado's conviction under state law as violative of due process of law. Like an indictment, the information was "merely a preliminary proceeding," which would bring about a final judgment only as a consequence of a regular trial. Since it served the substantial interest of the prisoner and protected the principles of liberty and justice in a manner comparable to an indictment or presentment by a grand jury, an information satisfied the requirements of due process as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The effect of this decision—that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process of law does not mandate that an indictment or presentment to a grand jury is necessary for a conviction under state criminal laws to be upheld as legally valid—is still the law after more than one hundred years.

Hurtado v. California
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 22 – 23, 1884 Decided March 3, 1884
Full case name: Joseph Hurtado v. People of California Citations: 110 U.S. 516; 4 S. Ct. 111; 28 L. Ed. 232; 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1716 Prior history: In error to the Supreme Court of California
Holding
The words "due process of law" in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Morrison Waite Associate Justices: Samuel Freeman Miller, Stephen Johnson Field, Joseph Philo Bradley, John Marshall Harlan, William Burnham Woods, Thomas Stanley Matthews, Horace Gray, Samuel Blatchford
Case opinions
Majority by: Matthews Joined by: Waite, Miller, Bradley, Woods, Gray, Blatchford Dissent by: Harlan Field took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; Article I Section 8 California State Constitution

Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. The case helped define rules regarding the use of grand juries in indictments.

Facts of the case

The state of California tried and convicted Hurtado for murder based on an information. No grand jury indicted Hurtado. According to the California State Constitution at the time, the following applied: "Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment, shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment, with or without such examination and commitment, as may be prescribed by law. A grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county." ^[1] At issue was whether or not the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause and the 5th Amendment's Indictment Clause required a grand jury indictment.

Questions presented

Does a state criminal proceeding based on an information rather than a grand jury indictment violate the 14th Amendment's due process clause? ^[2] Is a grand jury indictment required by the 5th amendment applicable to state criminal trials via the 14th amendment?

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 that Hurtado’s due process right was not violated by denial of a grand jury hearing and that the 14th amendment was not intended to work retroactively to apply the 5th amendment to state criminal trials. Writing for the majority, Matthews stated that the states should be free to construct their own laws without infringement and that the 14th amendment was not intended to guarantee the right of a grand jury because it would have been specifically referenced. His opinion also concluded that Hurtado’s due process right was not violated because an information is “merely a preliminary proceeding and can result in no final judgment.” He further concluded that Hurtado still received a fair trial.

However, in his lone dissent, Justice Harlan presented a learned disquisition on the history and meaning of “due process of law” that included quotes of many of the great jurists. “Blackstone says: 'But to find a bill there must be at least twelve of the jury agree; for, so tender is the law of England of the lives of the subjects, that no man can be convicted at the suit of the king of any capital offense, unless by a unanimous voice of twenty-four of his equals and neighbors; that is, by twelve at least of the grand jury, in the first place, assenting to the accusation, and afterwards by the whole petit jury of twelve more finding him guilty upon his trial.' 4 Bl. Comm. 306.” Further, “'But these informations (of every kind) are confined by the constitutional law to mere misdemeanors only; for, wherever any capital offense is charged, the same law requires that the accusation be warranted by the oath of twelve men before the party shall be put to answer it.' Id. 309.” He cited Edward Coke, who held that “in capital cases, informations are not allowed by that law [of the land], and was not due process of law.”

It has been on the basis of this decision that many states have abandoned the requirement for grand jury indictments, usually replacing them with informations and a preliminary hearing before a judge. However, as Justice Harlan said, “.. one of the peculiar benefits of the grand-jury system, as it exists in this country, is that it is composed, as a general rule, of private persons who do not hold office at the will of the government, or at the will of voters.” Critics contend that by abandoning the grand jury as originally conducted we have reduced the protections of the rights of accused and that the result is more miscarriages of justice.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 110

Notes

1. ^ Hurtado v. California. Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
2. ^ Unknown. Hurtado v. California. Oyez. Retrieved on 2006-11-30.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)