## Facts

- Edgar M. Heigho went with Frank Miller to J. W. Barton’s home to confront Barton about alleged disparaging remarks.
- At the door, Sylvia Riegleman (Barton’s mother-in-law) warned Barton not to open it, stating Heigho had a gun.
- Barton opened the door and stepped onto the porch; Heigho challenged Barton about the remarks, and Barton denied wrongdoing.
- Heigho struck Barton; Barton struck back; Barton’s wife ended the fight and ordered Heigho and Miller to leave.
- During the altercation, Riegleman cried out that Heigho was going to kill Barton, then collapsed and soon died.
- An autopsy attributed death to a ruptured aneurysm.
- The State charged Heigho with manslaughter on a theory that his unlawful conduct caused Riegleman’s death through fright or terror rather than direct physical force.
- Before trial, Heigho petitioned the Idaho Supreme Court for habeas corpus seeking discharge and dismissal of the charge.

## Issues

1. Whether a manslaughter charge is legally cognizable where the alleged cause of death is fright or terror induced by the defendant’s unlawful conduct rather than direct physical injury.
2. Whether a victim’s pre-existing physical condition (an aneurysm) defeats criminal causation as a matter of law.
3. Whether habeas corpus may be used pretrial to obtain discharge by contesting the sufficiency of the State’s causation theory and supporting evidence.

## Decision

- The court quashed the writ of habeas corpus and remanded Heigho for trial.
- The court treated the prosecution’s theory—death caused by fright or terror resulting from an unlawful assault or threatening conduct—as legally permissible.
- The court held that disputed questions of causation and criminal responsibility on these facts were for the jury, not for resolution through habeas corpus.

## Legal Principles

- Habeas corpus is not a substitute for a trial on the merits and generally cannot be used to weigh evidence or decide contested factual issues bearing on guilt.
- A homicide charge may be sustained where an unlawful assault or threatening conduct causes death through fright or terror that triggers a fatal physiological event, if causation is proven.
- A victim’s pre-existing physical weakness does not bar criminal liability as a matter of law when the defendant’s unlawful conduct is alleged to have precipitated the fatal result; whether the conduct in fact caused the death is ordinarily a fact question for the jury.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court denied pretrial discharge, holding that manslaughter based on death allegedly caused by fright or terror was not invalid as a matter of law and that causation, including the role of a pre-existing aneurysm, presented jury questions to be decided at trial rather than on habeas corpus.


Ex parte Heigho, 110 P. 1029 (Idaho 1910)