Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Clayton Octave FOUQUETTE
Status:
Executed by
asphyxiation-gas in Nevada on April 13,
Ex Parte Fouquette
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
July 5, 1951
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CLAYTON OCTAVE FOUQUETTE FOR
A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
W. T. Mathews, Attorney General, Geo. P. Annand, Robert L. McDonald,
Thos. A. Foley, Deputy Attorneys General, of Carson City, and Roger
D. Foley, District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent State.
By the Court, Eather, J.: The petitioner, Clayton Octave Fouquette,
on the 20th day of November, 1948, was convicted in the Eighth
judicial district court of the State of Nevada, in and for the county
of Clark, of the crime of murder in the first degree and the
punishment was fixed at death. Thereafter, on November 24, 1948,
petitioner through his attorney, moved for a new trial upon several
grounds, which said motion was denied and petitioner was thereupon
sentenced to death and placed in the custody of the warden of the
state prison
[68 Nev. 362, Page 363]
where he now remains. He appealed from said judgment and from the
order denying his motion for a new trial, and the supreme court made
an order suspending the execution of said judgment and sentence until
the determination of the appeal. On the 10th day of August, 1950, the
judgment and order of the trial court were affirmed and this court
directed the district court to make the proper order for the carrying
into effect by the warden of the state prison of the said judgment.
State v. Fouquette, 67 Nev. 505, 221 P.2d 404. Petitioner filed a
petition for rehearing which was denied on November 16, 1950. This
court filed its opinion in each instance. Petitioner was resentenced
to die on December 28, 1950. On December 18, 1950, this court stayed
the judgment of execution pending petition for a writ of certiorari to
the United States Supreme Court. On May 14, 1951, said petition was
denied. Pursuant to the above-mentioned directive the trial court
issued a warrant of execution and ordered said warden to execute the
judgment and sentence of death within the limits of the state prison
on June 18, 1951. Whereupon petitioner filed in this court a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, which was issued on June 11, 1951. In his
petition he alleged that he is unlawfully sentenced, imprisoned,
detained and restrained of his liberty in the Nevada State Prison in
Ormsby County, Nevada, by Arthur Bernard, the warden thereof. The
illegality of his imprisonment is put upon the ground that his
sentence, confinement, and restraint are illegal, unlawful, and in
violation of the rights guaranteed to petitioner by statutes of Nevada
and article I, section 8, of the Nevada constitution, and contrary to
the rights guaranteed petitioner by section 1, of the fourteenth
amendment to the United States constitution. The illegality of his
imprisonment is also put upon the grounds that he was insane on August
19, 1948, the date of the alleged crime; that it was impossible for
him to have had a
[68 Nev. 362, Page 364]
fair trial in Clark County in view of prejudice and adverse
publicity and further that certain confessions admitted as evidence
were not legally admissible as voluntary confessions. The respondent
warden filed his return to the writ and brought the petitioner into
court on the 29th day of June, 1951, at which time a full hearing was
had, during which petitioner was represented by his attorney, John W.
Bonner, Esq., and the matter was submitted to this court for decision.
Petitioner filed points and authorities in which he says the following
three substantial questions are raised: 1. Was petitioner insane on
August 19, 1948, the date of the alleged crime? 2. Was it possible for
him to have had a fair trial in Clark County, Nevada, in view of
prejudice and adverse publicity as disclosed by the record herein? 3.
Were the confessions legally admissible as voluntary confessions?
These matters were all determined adversely to the contentions of the
petitioner at the trial, the motion for a new trial, the appeal and
affirmance in this court and the denial of his petition for rehearing.
From an examination of the record in the instant case it appears from
the petition, as well as from the return to the writ, that the
judgment of conviction is regular upon its face. This being true, it
follows from the principles announced in Ex Parte Winston, 9 Nev. 71,
35 Pac. St. Rep., page 71, and the authorities there cited, that the
judgment of conviction in the district court is conclusive until
reversed. It cannot be reviewed upon habeas corpus. 9 Nev. on page 75
in the case of Ex Parte Winston, supra, the court stated: "A habeas
corpus is not a writ of error. It cannot be used to authorize the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction. On a habeas corpus the judgment of
an inferior court cannot be disregarded. We can only look at the
record to see whether a judgment exists
[68 Nev. 362, Page 365]
, and have no power to say whether it is right or wrong. It is
conclusively presumed to be right until reversed; and when the
imprisonment is under process, valid on its face, it will be deemed
prima facie legal, and if the petitioner fails to show a want of
jurisdiction in the magistrate or court whence it emanated, his body
must be remanded to custody." Citing numerous authorities. The
principle is too well settled to require discussion. This proceeding
is hereby dismissed, and petitioner is remanded to the custody of the
warden of the state prison.