Hurtado v. California
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Hurtado v. California | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||
| Argued January 22 - 23, 1884 Decided March 3, 1884 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| 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 | |||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||
| Laws applied | |||||||||
| Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; Article I Section 8 California State Constitution. | |||||||||
Hurtado v. California (110 U.S. 516) is a case decided in 1884 by the United States Supreme Court. The case helped define rules regarding the use of grand juries in indictments.
Contents |
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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?
[edit] 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.
[edit] Notes
- ^ Hurtado v. California. Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
- ^ Unknown. Hurtado v. California. Oyez. Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
