19 Utah 231 | Utah | 1899
An information was filed against the petitioner in the district court of Uinta County, Utah, on the 10th day of August, 1897, charging him with the crime of' grand larceny, alleged to have been committed in Uinta County, on the 19th day of July, 1897. To this information the accused entered a plea of not guilty. He was thereafter duly tried in the district court upon the charge contained in the information, under the constitution and laws of the State of Utah, by eight jurors duly empaneled and sworn,
The petitioner contends that he was tried and convicted without due process of law; that only eight persons constituted the jury before whom he was tried and convicted, and that such conviction is in contravention of Sec. 1, Art. 14, of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which provides, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and of Art. 6, of the amendments of the Constitution of the United States, which provides among other things, that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” and also that a conviction under Sec. 10, Art. 1, of the Constitution of the State of Utah, which provides, that ‘ ‘ In capital cases the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. In courts of general jurisdiction, except in capital cases, a jury shall consist of eight jurors. In courts of inferior jurisdiction a jury
Sec. 1295, Rev. Stat. 1898, enacted since the adoption of the Constitution, provides that 1 ‘ A trial jury in capital cases shall consist of twelve jurors. A trial jury in other criminal cases and in civil cases in the district courts shall consist of eight jurors; provided, that in civil cases and cases of misdemeanor, the jury may consist of any number less than eight upon which the parties may agree in open court. A trial jury in a justice’s court, both in civil and criminal cases, shall consist of four persons, or of any number less, than four upon which the parties may agree in open court. ”
Under Sec. 4361, Rev. Stat. 1898, grand larceny is punishable by imprisonment in the State prison for a term of not less than one year nor more than ten years.
The question for determination is, whether Sec. 10, of Art. 1, of the State Constitution, which provides, that, ‘£ In courts of general jurisdiction, except in capital cases, the jury shall consist of eight jurors,” is repugnant to and in violation of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, which provides, “Nor shall any State deprive any 'person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” In other words, can a State, in its constitution, provide for a trial of
With reference to the sixth Amendment, upon which petitioner in part relies, it is now rendered clear from the decisions upon that provision in the Constitution that its prohibitory pi’o vision applies exclusively to the United States, and not to the respective States. This necessarily results from the rule that instruments of that character are to be construed with reference to the subject matter; and, as the subject matter of the Constitution was established and regulated by the federal government, nothing contained in it was entitled to operate upon the State governments, unless the intention is expressly declared, or appears by plain implication.
In Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 7 Wall, 321, the court held that “the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, relating to criminal prosecutions, were not designed as limits on State governments, in reference to their citizens, but exclusively as restrictions upon the federal power.” A similar holding was made in Baron v. City of Baltimore, 7 Pet., 243; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How., 434; in re Kemmler, 136 U. S., 448.
Before discussing the question with reference to the Fourteenth Amendment, it may be advisable to refer to decisions of the highest courts of the land that bear upon that question.
In Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S., 22, Mr. Justice Bradley, in discussing the equality clause in the Fourteenth Amendment said: “The Fourteenth Amendment does not profess to secure to all persons in the United States the benefit of the same laws and the same remedies. Great diversities in these respects may exist in two States
If a Mexican State should be acquired by treaty, and added to an adjoining State, or part of a State, in the United States, and the two should be erected into a new State, it can not be doubted that such new State might allow the Mexican laws and judicature to continue unchanged in the one portion, and the common law and its corresponding judicature in the other portion. Such an arrangement would not be prohibited by any fair construction of the Fourteenth Amendment. It would not be based on any respect of persons or classes, but on municipal considerations alone, and a regard to the welfare of all classes within the particular territory or jurisdiction.”
In Wilson v. North Carolina, 169 U. S., 586, where the Governor of the State of North Carolina suspended a railroad commissioner appointed under the laws of the State, the question arose as to whether the State, through the action of its Governor and judiciary, had deprived the officer of his property without due process of law, or denied to him the equal protection of the laws. Mr. Justice Peckham, in delivering the opinion of the court; said : £ ‘ The procedure provided by a valid State law for the purpose of changing the incumbent of a State office will not in general involve any question for review by this court. A law of that kind does but provide for the carrying out and enforcement of the policy of a State with reference to its political and internal administration, and
In Garnett v. Jennings, 44 S. W. Rep., 382, tbe court held: “It is further objected by appellants that tbe whole law of distress is contrary to, and in conflict with, both tbe federal and State constitutions, as depriving tbe tenant of bis property without due process of law. But tbe words c due process of law ’ do not necessarily imply a trial by jury, as seems to be intended on behalf of the appellants. ‘The better and larger definition of “due process of law ” is that it means law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice. ’ 2 Kent, Comm. 13. Tbe words were intended to bave tbe same meaning as tbe words 1 by the law of tbe land ’ in Magna Charta. Murray v. Improvement Co., 18 How., 276.”
In the case of Rowan v. The State, 30 Wis., 129, the court, in speaking of tbe Fourteenth Amendment, said: ‘ ‘ But its design was not to confine tbe States to a particular mode of procedure in judicial proceedings, and prohibit them from prosecuting for felonies by information instead
In Vol. 2, Hare’s American Constitutional Law, p. 859, it is said :
“The right of trial by jury depends upon the provisions by which it is specifically secured rather than on the phrase ‘ due process of law, ’ embodied in the Fifth .and Fourteenth Amendments ; and as this is the only clause in the national Constitution bearing on the subject which is applicable to the States, they are free to adopt any mode of procedure which is consonant with the principles of jurisprudence and calculated to promote the ends of distributive justice. The federal guaranty is confined to the national courts, and does not preclude the States from authorizing their tribunals to decide civil or even criminal issues without submitting them to a jury. ’ ’
And, as said in Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U. S., 294, “When ample provision is made for an inquiry as to damages before a competent court, and for a review of the proceedings of the court of original jurisdiction upon appeal to the highest court of the State, this is due process
Again, in Kennard v. Morgan, 92 U. S., 480, it is held, “It is not possible to hold that a party has, without due process of law, been deprived of his property when, as regards the issues affecting it, he has, by the laws of the State, had a fair trial in the court of justice according to the modes of proceeding applicable to such a case.”
In Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S, 90, it is said: “The States, so far as this amendment is concerned, are left to regulate trials in their own courts in their own way. A trial by jury in suits at common law pending in the State courts is not, therefore, a privilege or immunity of national citizenship, which the States are forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment to abridge. A State can not deprive a person of his property without due process of law; but this does not necessarily imply that all trials in the State courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. This requirement of the Constitution is met if the trial is had according to the settled course of judicial proceedings. Due process of law is process due according to the law of the land. This process in the States is regulated by the law of the State. ” 2d Hare’s Constitutional Law, pp. 751, 752.
In Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S., 516, it is said:
“The Constitution of the United States was ordained, it is true, by descendants of Englishmen, who inherited the traditions of English law and history; but it was made for an undefined and expanding future, and for a people gathered and to be gathered from many nations and of many tongues. * * * In this country written constitutions were deemed essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people against the encroachments of power delegated to their governments, and the provisions of
Following these decisions and upon such interpretation of the federal constitution, several of the States have adopted constitutions with reference thereto. In the States of Michigan, Colorado, Florida, and Louisiana, the constitution authorizes the legislature, in civil cases, to provide for a trial by jury of less than twelve men. In New Hampshire and Massachusetts laws may be made for the government of the army and navy without providing for a trial by jury. In California the constitution provides that a jury may be waived by both parties in all criminal cases, not amounting to a felony. In New Mexico the accused may in all cases waive a jury trial. In Delaware and North Carolina, the legislature may provide in criminal cases, not infamous, other means of trial. In Iowa and South Carolina it is provided that all offenses, less than a felony, in which the penalty does not exceed $100, or 30 days’ imprisonment, shall be tried summarily before a justice of the peace. Stimpson’s American Statute Law.
The Fourteenth Amendment is a distinct restriction on the States and their courts, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments have reciprocal prohibitions, and so far as concerns this case, are in the same words. But in another provision the Constitution prescribes a common law jury in federal courts. No such provision exists in regard to State courts. The Fourteenth Amendment is comparatively recent, and its history, and the evils existing or anticipated, which it was intended to remedy or prevent,
There are many cases, as we have seen, in which there are comments on the words “due process of law,” but no case has been referred to in which they have been held to mean more than the process which is due alike to all persons in the administration of the law to which they are subject. They forbid the arbitrary punishment of any man on account of race, color, religious or political opinions, or on suspicion or without trial in the due course prescribed by the laws for all persons accused.
In Garnette v. Jennings, supra, the words ‘ ‘ Due process of law,” are defined to mean, law in the regular course of
It is quite clear that this amendment only requires that each State shall observe the due process provided by its own laws in all cases and in respect to all persons.
The cases heretofore referred to, both civil and criminal in their nature, tend to show that the words ‘‘ due process of law ” only require proceedings in accordance with the laws of the State, and do not prohibit a court, organized in accordance with the constitution and laws of the State, though not in accordance with the common law, or the law under which the federal courts are organized, from trying one accused of a felony, or hearing any matter within their jurisdiction. No cases have been cited holding a contrary doctrine.
Only the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain the words “due process of law.” This is the only clause found in the Constitution applicable to the States. In it the States are left free to adopt any mode of procedure which is consistent with the principles of jurisprudence calculated to promote the ends of justice. The Constitution of the United States “was framed for an indefinite and expanding future, and for people gathered and to be gathered from many nations and many tongues,” and the term “ due process of law” should be “held to guarantee no particular form of procedure, but the very substance of individual right to life, liberty, and property.” The phrase should receive a comprehensive interpretation, and no procedure be treated as without its meaning or unconstitutional, which duly provides for the trial of criminal cases before a court of competent jurisdiction; for bringing the party into court and notifying
The Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to confine the States to a particular mode of procedure in judicial proceedings. It does not mean nor has it the effect to limit the power of State governments in the prosecution of criminals to any particular mode of procedure in the selection of its jurors or manner of conducting its trials, but did require that such trials shall be conducted in the due course of the administration of justice according to the prescribed forms and judicial procedure of the State for the protection of the individual rights and liberties of its citizens. That which the common law tolerated might be regarded as due process of law, but methods and procedure which were unknown to the common law can not be discarded if they are consistent with the cardinal principles and groundwork which are necessary to the administration of justice, in the several States.
As said in Hurtado v. California, supra, “It follows that any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age and custom, or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, in furtherance of the general public good, which requires and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law.”
We therefore hold that the proceedings by which the
“The writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.”