STATE v. JAMES FLOYD HARRIS

Minnesota Supreme Court1967-08-04No. No. 40,296

277 Minn. 351152 N.W.2d 728

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to quash the information, rejecting all constitutional challenges to the theft statute on grounds that the statute is not vague, satisfies due process requirements, does not violate double jeopardy protections, does not deny the right to jury trial, and complies with the single-subject requirement for legislation.

James Floyd Harris was charged with theft by issuing four fraudulent checks worth $35 each in August 1964. He moved to quash the information, arguing that the relevant theft statute violated multiple constitutional protections, including those against vague laws, deprivation of due process, double jeopardy, denial of jury trial, and violation of single-subject requirements for legislation. The trial court denied the motion but certified the constitutional questions to the state's highest court.

The court rejected all of Harris's constitutional challenges. On vagueness and due process grounds, the court cited its recent decision in State v. Mathiasen, which had already upheld the statute's validity. Regarding double jeopardy, the court found Harris had presented no evidence of prior prosecution for the same offense. On the jury trial claim, the court determined that the statute permissibly treats fraudulent check issuance within a six-month period as a single offense, and a defendant has no constitutional right to separate jury trials for different checks within that single offense. Finally, the court upheld the statute against the challenge that it violated the state constitutional requirement that laws address only one subject, noting that the statute was part of a comprehensive criminal code act clearly addressing crimes and punishment.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the theft statute is unconstitutionally vague
Whether the statute violates due process
Whether aggregating check values within a six-month period constitutes double jeopardy
Whether treating multiple fraudulent checks as a single offense denies the right to jury trial
Whether the statute violates the state constitutional single-subject requirement

Procedural posture

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to quash the information and certified the constitutional questions to the state supreme court pursuant to the defendant's request.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Sheran, Justice.

Certification of questions by district court as important and doubtful. On December 30, 1964, an information was filed in the District Court of Jackson County charging defendant with theft by means of four checks, each for $35, issued August 2, 1964, contrary to Minn. St. 609.52, subds. 2(3)(a) and 3(4). Defendant moved for an order quashing the information because it did not state a public offense, asserting that § 609.52, subds. 2(3) (a) and 3(4), are invalid in that they:

(1) Violate U. S. Const. Amends. VI and XIV and Minn. Const, art. 1, § 6, in that they are so vague and indefinite that defendant is not informed of the nature and cause of the prosecution against him.

(2) Violate U. S. Const. Amend. XIV and Minn. Const, art. 1, § 7, in that they deprive defendant of his liberty without due process of law.

(3) Violate U. S. Const. Amends. V and XIV and Minn. Const, art. 1, § 7, in causing defendant to be twice jeopardized for commission of the same act.

(4) Violate U. S. Const. Amends. VI and XIV and Minn. Const, art. 1, § 6, in that they deny defendant trial by jury.

(5) Violate Minn. Const, art. 4, § 27, in that they embrace more than one subject and embrace a subject not expressed in the title.

The trial court denied defendant’s motion, but, at his request, certified the matter to this court as being important and doubtful.

Vagueness. In State v. Mathiasen, 273 Minn. 372, 141 N. W. (2d) 805, which was decided subsequent to the trial court’s certification in the present case, we determined that the sections here considered are not unconstitutionally vague. We adhere to that decision.

Due Process. Also in the Mathiasen case, we held the statute “valid in all respects.” 273 Minn. 378, 141 N. W. (2d) 810.

Double Jeopardy. Defendant’s double jeopardy claim is without merit. He has not shown that he has previously been prosecuted for the same offense within the meaning of the constitutional provisions relied upon or convicted or acquitted of any offense arising out of the same conduct within the meaning of Minn. St. 609.035.

Trial. The sections under attack do not deprive defendant of his right to a jury trial. Defendant has no right to a separate jury trial as to each check. As pointed out in the Mathiasen case, the legislature has competently made it one offense to pursue a certain course of conduct, viz., fraudulent issuance of checks within a 6-month period. The right to a jury trial does not encompass a right to separate trials as to various elements of a single offense. No question of venue arises where, as here, all the checks were issued in the same county.

Multiple Subjects; Title. Minn. Const, art. 4, § 27, provides: “No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” The statutory provisions here considered are a part of L. 1963, c. 753, entitled, “Relating to crimes and punishment; creating the criminal code of 1963 and conforming and harmonizing certain provisions of Minnesota Statutes with the provisions thereof; amending Minnesota Statutes 1961, Sections * * *; repealing Minnesota Statutes 1961, Sections * * The law clearly does not violate Minn. Const, art. 4, § 27. See, State v. Meyer, 228 Minn. 286, 37 N. W. (2d) 3, and cases cited.

The trial court properly overruled defendant’s motion to quash the information.

Questions certified are answered in the negative.

Minn. St. 609.52, subd. 2(3)(a), provides: “Subd. 2. Whoever does any of the following commits theft and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 3:

“(3) Obtains for himself or another the possession, custody, or title to property of a third person by intentionally deceiving him with a false representation which is known to be false, made with intent to defraud, and which does defraud the person to whom it is made. ‘False representation’ includes without limitation:

“(a) The issuance of a check, draft, or order for the payment of money or the delivery of property knowing that he is not entitled to draw upon the drawee therefor or to order the payment or delivery thereof.”

Minn. St. 609.52, subd. 3(4), provides: “Subd. 3. Whoever commits theft may be sentenced as follows:

“(4) * * * [I]n any prosecution under clause (3) (a) of subdivision 2 hereunder the value of the money or property received by the defendant in violation thereof within any six month period may be aggregated and the defendant charged accordingly in applying the provisions of this subdivision.”

Subd. 3 (2) provides for a sentence of up to 5 years or a fine of not more than $5,000, or both, for theft of more than $100 but not more than $2,500.