Farnham v. Colman

Citations

• 19 S.D. 342
• 103 N.W. 161
• 1905 S.D. LEXIS 44

Syllabus

<p>1. The circuit court cannot review by mandamus the action of a committing magistrate in refusing to punish a witness for contempt.</p> <p>2. The refusal of a committing magistrate to compel the prosecuting attorney to produce, on preliminary examination and in obedience to a subpoena duces tecum, dying declarations reduced to writing, does not violate the constitutional right of accused to meet the witnesses face to face and to have compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his behalf.</p> <p>3. The refusal to compel production of such writing does not impair the right given to accused by Rev. Code Cr. Proc. § 141, to produce his witnesses after the axamination of the state’s witnesses is closed.</p> <p>4. Rev. CodoCr. Proc. §§ 140, 512, requires the committing magistrate to issue a subpoena for witnesses and papers or documents required by defendant. Section 518 makes disobedience of a subpoena,, or a refusal to bo sworn or to testify, punishable by the court or magistrate as for a criminal contempt, as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 495 of such Code prescribes a line as the punishment for contempt where a witness fails to attend in obedience to a subpoena, and authorizes a punishment by fine or imprisonment in other cases. Held, that a committing magistrate has no power to punish as for a contempt the refusal of a witness to produce documents called for by a subpoena duces tecum.</p>