State v. Froiseth
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1986, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Clifford (Colo. 1939)
- State v. Murphy (Minn. 1986)
- People v. De Feo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1954)
- Tsavaris v. Scruggs (Fla. 1977)
- Jenkins v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)
- People v. Luckman (New York Supreme Court 1937)
- People v. Singh (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
- State v. Smith (S.D. 1929)
- Hawley v. Wallace (Minn. 1917)
- State v. Schroder (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County 1914)
- People v. Bermel (New York Supreme Court 1911)
- People v. Cahill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1908)
- United States v. Kimball (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1902)
- United States v. Jones (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada 1895)
- Boone v. People (Ill. 1894)
- State v. Hawks (Minn. 1894)
- Territory of Montana v. Pendry (Mont. 1889)
- People v. Singer (Court Of Oyer And Terminer New York 1886)
- Mackin v. People (Ill. 1885)
- State v. Grady (Mo. 1884)
- State v. Grady (Mo. Ct. App. 1882)
- United States v. Farrington (District Court, N.D. New York 1881)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
By the Court
The defendant was indicted in the court of common pleas of Ramsey county for the crime of receiving, greater fees than are allowed by law for his services as a justice of the peace. After filing the indictment, and before plea, the defendant moved to set aside the indictment.
The court below being of opinion that questions of law arise upon said motion to set aside the indictment which are so important and doubtful as to require the decision of the supreme court, and the defendant expressly desiring and consenting thereto, the court ordered the case to be reported and certified to this court in pursuance of the statute.
Among the “names of witnesses examined before the grand jury” is the name “B. A. Froiseth.” It appears by the affidavit of the defendant, “that he was required by the grand jury to testify as a witness touching the charge and matters alleged in the indictment against him.”
It is stipulated by the county attorney and the attorney for the defendant:
1st. “That the grand jury required the defendant to attend and be examined before them as a witness touching the charge or matters set forth in the indictment, and that in pursuance thereof said defendant did so attend before said grand jury, and was examined as a witness by them touching the said charge and matters, and that his'name is inserted as a witness at the foot of the indictment.
2d. “ That C. L. Grant, one of the grand iurors who was present during the examination of the charge by the grand
The first question presented is whether the fact, that the defendant was required by the grand jury to testify, and in pursuance of such requisition did testify before that body touching the charge and matters set forth.in the indictment, vitiates the indictment.
It is conceded by the attorney general that this objection is fatal to the indictment.
We think there can be no doubt upon the question. The Bill of Rights expressly declares that “no person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Const, curt. 1, seo. 7. The statute of this state, which provides that, “ on the trial of all indictments, complaints, and other proceedings against persons charged with the commission of crimes or offenses, the person so charged shall, at his request, but not otherwise, be deemed a competent witness; Cen. Stat. oh. 73, seo. 7, as amended Sess. Laws 1868, oh. 70, whatever may be its effect, certainly does not take away or impair the rights declared and secured' to all persons by the Bill of Rights. The objection is therefore fatal to the indictment.
As the second ground of objection, which we presume was the point regarded by the court below as doubtful, is unnecessary to the determination of this case, and as the objection is presented and determined in the case of the State vs. James E. Froiseth, submitted at the present term, we do not consider it here. The motion to-set aside the indictment is granted.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.