State v. PolkState v. Polk
TATE, Justice.
The defendant is charged with aggravated kidnapping.
Aggravated kidnapping is legislatively defined as a capital crime, unless the victim is liberated unharmed.
The defendant contends that the offense is noncapital because the death penalty was held unconstitutional as excessive under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, citing Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977).2 The trial court rejected this contention.
We granted certiorari, 373 So.2d 968 (1979), to review this ruling.
In Eberheart v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 917, 97 S.Ct. 2994, 53 L.Ed.2d 1104 (1977), on the same date as it decided that the death penalty for rape is unconstitutional, Coker v. Georgia, cited above, the United States Supreme Court likewise held that the death penalty could not be imposed for aggravated kidnapping—under circumstances generically identical to the present, where the rape of the victim constituted the bodily injury which was the essential element of the capital classification of the kidnapping crime. Eberheart v. State, 232 Ga. 247, 206 S.E.2d 12 (1974).3 The nation‘s high tribunal thus held that, if the death penalty is constitutionally excessive for the brutal crime of rape, then for essentially the same reasons it is also unconstitutional for the wrongful conduct of carrying the victim away for the purpose of raping her. (Cf. footnote 1 above.)
The state points out that, nevertheless, the crime of aggravated kidnapping is still legislatively classified as capital in Louisiana, with all the procedural consequences (including non-bailability), even though the death penalty may not be constitutionally imposed. It relies upon the holding to this effect in State v. Rich, 368 So.2d 1083 (La. 1979), and the jurisprudence upon which this decision is based, stemming from State v. Holmes, 269 So.2d 207 (La.1972) and State v. Flood, 269 So.2d 212 (La.1972). See also State v. McZeal, 352 So.2d 592 (La. 1977) and State v. Rhymes, 284 So.2d 923 (La.1973). As we summarized these holdings in Rich, in spite of judicial invalidation of the death penalty, “upon prosecution of crimes for which the legislature had prescribed the death penalty, those offenses
Nevertheless, these decisions essentially represented merely interim regulation of offenses legislatively classified as capital, pending the legislature‘s re-evaluation of the classification following judicial invalidation of the penalty. As we noted in Holmes, our holding as to procedural administration in this manner of these legislatively-classified capital crimes was made—”at least until the legislative process has reorganized the criminal law and procedure in view of” the judicial invalidation of the death penalty. 269 So.2d 209.
We did not intend by our holdings to permit the constitutional right of bail in non-capital crimes to be indefinitely curtailed by legislative inaction in re-classification or re-regulation in instances where the death penalty provided by a statute is judicially held to be unconstitutional, whether the inaction be through oversight4 or otherwise; nor did we intend to hold that the constitutional provision requiring bailability could be evaded by arbitrary legislative classification as capital of a crime for which constitutionally no death penalty may be imposed.
Here, on June 29, 1977 the United States Supreme Court in Eberheart had held the death penalty to be unconstitutional for aggravated kidnapping, even though for the purpose of committing a brutal rape. The present kidnapping offense is charged to have been committed on April 25, 1979, almost two years later. The legislature has met in three annual sessions since Eberheart; but (probably through oversight, see footnote 4) it has nevertheless failed to revise the aggravated kidnapping statute insofar as it provides a death penalty invalidated by Eberheart.
Under these circumstances, we do not believe that either legislative inaction, or the judicial interim-regulation of Holmes and its progeny, can deprive the accused of his right to bail when charged with a non-capital offense, as guaranteed to him by
Decree
Accordingly, the ruling of the trial court which denied bail to the accused is reversed, and the case is remanded for a hearing to fix bail in accordance with
REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS.
SUMMERS, C. J., dissents. I would uphold the ruling of the trial judge.