United States Supreme Court Cases & Opinions

U.S. Supreme Court

Gut v. State, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 35 35 (1869)

Gut v. State

76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 35

ERROR TO THE SUPREME

COURT OF MINNESOTA

1. A law of a state changing the place of trial from one county to another county in the same district, or even to a different district from that in which the offense was committed or the indictment found, is not an ex post facto law, though passed subsequent to the commission of the offense or the finding of the indictment. An ex post facto law does not involve, in any of its definitions, a change of the place of trial of an alleged offense after its commission.

2. The decision of the highest court of a state that an act of the state is not in conflict with a provision of its constitution is conclusive upon this Court.

A statute of Minnesota, in force in 1866, required that criminal causes should be tried in the county where the offenses were committed. The offense charged against the defendant was committed in December of that year, in the

Page 76 U. S. 36

County of Brown in that state. At that time, four other counties, which were unorganized, were attached to Brown County for judicial purposes. On the 9th of March, 1867, a statute was passed by the legislature of the state authorizing the judge of the district court, in cases where one or more counties were attached to another county for judicial purposes, to order, whenever he should consider it to be in furtherance of justice, or for the public convenience, that the place of holding the court should be changed from the county then designated by law to one of the other counties thus attached.