U.S. Supreme Court Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) Hurtado v. California Argued January 22d, 23d 1884. Decided March 3d, 1884 110 U.S. 516 Syllabus .Thewords"dueprocessoflaw"intheFourteenthAmendmentoftheConstitutionoftheUnited 1 States do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution byaStatefor murder. . The Constitution of California authorizes prosecutions for felonies by information, after 2 examination and commitment by a magistrate, without indictment by a grand jury, in the discretionofthelegislature.ThePenalCodeoftheStatemakesprovisionforanexaminationbya magistrate, in the presence of the accused, who is entitled to the aid of counsel chanrobles.com-redchanrobles.com-red Page 110 U. S. 517 ndtherightofcross-examinationofwitnesses,whosetestimonyistotoreducedtowritingand a upon a certificate thereon by the magistrate that a described offence has been committed and that here is sufficient cause to believe the accused guilty thereof, and an order holding him to answer thereto, requires an information to be filed against the accused intheSuperiorcourtof thecountyinwhichtheoffenceistriableintheformofanindictmentforthesameoffence.Held, thataconvictionuponsuchaninformationformurderinthefirstdegreeandasentenceofdeath thereonarenotillegalbyvirtueofthatclauseoftheFourteenthAmendmenttotheConstitutionof theUnitedStateswhichprohibitstheStatesfromdeprivinganypersonoflife,libertyorproperty without due process of law. he Constitution of the State of California, adopted in 1879, in article I., section8,providesas T follows: " Offencesheretoforerequiredtobeprosecutedbyindictmentshallbeprosecutedbyinformation, 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." arious provisions of the Penal Code regulateproceedingsbeforetheexaminingandcommitting V magistrate in cases of persons arrested and brought before him upon charges of having committed public offences. These require, among other things, that the testimony of the witnessesshallbereducedtowritingintheformofdepositions,andsection872declaresthat,if itappearsfromtheexaminationthatapublicoffencehasbeencommitted,andthereissufficient cause to believethedefendantguiltythereof,themagistratemustindorseonthedepositionsan order, signedbyhim,tothateffect,describingthegeneralnatureoftheoffencecommitted,and rdering that the defendant be held to answer thereto. Section 809 of the Penal Code is as o follows: " Whenadefendanthasbeenexaminedandcommitted,asprovidedinsection872ofthisCode,it shallbethedutyofthedistrictattorney,withinthirtydaysthereafter,tofileintheSuperiorCourt of the county in which the offence is triable an information charging the defendant with such offence. The information shall Page 110 U. S. 518 e in the name of the people of the State of California, andsubscribedbythedistrictattorney, b and shall be in form like an indictment for the same offence." I n pursuance of the foregoing provision of the Constitution, and of the several sections of the PenalCodeofCalifornia,thedistrictattorneyofSacramentoCounty,onthe20thdayofFebruary, 1882,madeandfiledaninformationagainsttheplaintiffinerror,charginghimwiththecrimeof murderinthekillingofoneJoseAntonioStuardo.Uponthisinformation,andwithoutanyprevious investigationofthecausebyanygrandjury,theplaintiffinerrorwasarraignedonthe22ddayof March, 1882, and pleaded not guilty. A trial of the issue was thereafter had, and, on May 7th, 1882, the jury rendered its verdict in whichitfoundtheplaintiffinerrorguiltyofmurderinthe first degree. nthe5thdayofJune,1882,theSuperiorCourtofSacramentoCounty,inwhichtheplaintiffin O error had been tried, rendered its judgment upon said verdict that the said Joseph Hurtado, plaintiffinerror,bepunishedbytheinflictionofdeath,andthedayofhisexecutionwasfixedfor the 20th day of July, 1882. rom this judgment, an appeal was taken, and the Supreme Court of the State of California F affirmed the judgment. n the 6th day of July, 1883, theSuperiorCourtofsaidcountyofSacramentoorderedthatthe O plaintiffinerrorbeincourtonthe11thdayofJuly,1883,inorderthatadayfortheexecutionof thejudgmentinsaidcauseshouldbefixed.Inpursuanceofsaidorder,plaintiffinerror,withhis counsel,appearedatthebarofthecourt,andthereuponthejudgeaskedhimifhehadanylegal reasontourgewhysaidjudgmentshouldnotbeexecuted,andwhyanordershouldnotthenbe made fixing the day for the execution of the same. hereupon,theplaintiffinerror,byhiscounsel,objectedtotheexecutionofsaidjudgmentandto T any order which the court might make fixing a day for the execution of the same, upon the grounds: "7th. That it appeared upon the face of the judgment that the Page 110 U. S. 519 laintiffinerrorhadneverbeenlegally,orotherwise,indictedorpresentedbyanygrandjury,and p that he was proceeded against by information made and filed by the district attorney of the county of Sacramento, after examination and commitment by a magistrate of the said county." " 8th. That thesaidproceedings,aswellasthelawsandConstitutionofCalifornia,attemptingto authorize them, and the alleged verdict of the jury, and judgment ofthesaidSuperiorCourtof said county of Sacramento, were in conflict with and prohibited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Articles of Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and that they were therefore void." " 9th.Thatthesaidplaintiffinerrorhadbeenheldtoanswerforthesaidcrimeofmurderbythe districtattorneyofthesaidcountyofSacramento,uponaninformationfiledbyhim,andhadbeen tried and illegally found guilty of the said crime without any presentment or indictment of any grandorotherjury,andthatthejudgmentrenderedupontheallegedverdictofthejuryinsuch case was and is void, and, if executed, would deprive the plaintiff in error of his life or liberty without due process of law." hereuponthecourtoverruledthesaidobjectionsandfixedthe30thdayofAugust,1883,asthe T timefortheexecutionofthesentence.Fromthislatterjudgment,theplaintiffinerrorappealedto the Supreme Court of the State. nthe18thdayofSeptember,1883,theSupremeCourtoftheStateaffirmedthesaidjudgment, O to review which the present writ of error was allowed and has been prosecuted.
