Folsom v. United States

Citation16 S.Ct. 222,40 L.Ed. 363,160 U.S. 121
Decision Date02 December 1895
Docket NumberNo. 550,550
PartiesFOLSOM v. UNITED STATES
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

This was a certificate from the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit, which, omitting the formal parts, reads as follows:

'First. At a regular term of the district court of the Second judicial district of the territory of New Mexico, sitting for the trial of causes arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, held at Albuquerque, in said district, the plaintiff in error, Stephen M. Folsom, was, on the 15th day of March, 1894, indicted by the grand jury in said court for making certain false entries in violation of the provisions of section 5209 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

'Second. He was thereafter arraigned. He pleaded not guilty. He was tried by the said district court and a jury, was found guilty of making certain of the false entries charged in said indictments in violation of the provisions of section 5209, and was thereafter, on the 14th day of April, 1894, ordered and adjudged by the said court to be confined at hard labor in the territorial penitentiary at Santa F e, New Mexico, for the term and period of five years upon each of the seven separate and distinct offenses, as laid and charged in the fourteen counts of the indictments upon which the jury had theretofore returned a verdict of guilty; and it was further ordered and adjudged by the said court that said term upon each of the said offenses should run concurrently each with the others, and that the defendant pay the costs to be taxed, and that execution issue therefor.

'Third. The said Stephen M. Folsom then appealed from said judgment to the supreme court of the territory of New Mexico, and his case upon said appeal was heard and tried by the said supreme court August 27, 28, and 29, 1894; was on the latter day submitted to and taken under advisement by said court, which, on September 4, 1894, adjudged that the judgment of the district court of the Second judicial district aforesaid be affirmed, and that said Folsom be confined in the New Mexico penitentiary at Santa F e, New Mexico, for the full term of five years, pursuant to the said judgment of the district court.

'Fourth. On the 9th day of November, 1894, a writ of error was duly issued out of the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth judicial circuit to the supreme court of the territory of New Mexico, commanding the said court to send the records and proceedings and the judgment in said case between the United States of America-plaintiff and appellee, and Stephen M. Folsom, defendant and appellant, in said supreme court, with all things concerning the same, to this circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit, together with said writ, so that the same should be filed in the office of the clerk of this court on or before the first day of January, 1895, to the end that, the records and proceedings aforesaid being inspected, the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit might cause further to be done therein to correct the error of which the said Folsom had complained that of right and according to the law and custom of the United States should be done; and pursuant to that writ the clerk of the supreme court of the territory of New Mexico made due return and transmitted to this court a true copy of the record, bill of exceptions, assignment of errors, and of all proceedings in said case before January 1, 1894, and the said case is now pending in this court.

'Fifth. January 7, 1895, the United States of America filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that this circuit court of appeals has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the issue raised thereby, or to review the said judgment of the supreme court of the territory of New Mexico, and the said motion has been argued and submitted to this court for decision.

'Sixth. The errors in the judgment and proceedings of the supreme court of the territory of New Mexico which are assigned by Stephen M. Folsom, the plaintiff in error, in his complaint, upon which the said writ of error was issued from this court, are such that, if, upon due consideration upon the merits, they should be sustained, the judgment of the said supreme court ought to be reversed.

'And the said United States circuit court of appeals further certifies that, to the end that it may properly decide this and other questions arising in this case which are duly presented by exceptions and assignments of error properly taken and filed, the said court desires the instruction of the supreme court of the United States upon the following question:

'Has the United States circuit court of appeals for the Eighth judicial circuit any jurisdiction to hear and determine the issue presented by said writ of error, and to review the judgment and proceedings of the supreme court of the territory of New Mexico?'

Charles A. Willard, for plaintiff in error.

Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

The offense denounced by section 5209 of the Revised Statutes is punishable by imprisonment not less than 5 nor more than 10 years, and is therefore an infamous crime. In re Claasen, 140 U. S. 200, 11 Sup. Ct. 735, and cases cited.

The question, then, is whether the circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit has jurisdiction of a writ of error to review the judgment and proceedings of the supreme court of the territory of New Mexico in the instance of a conviction of an infamous crime.

By section 5 of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 827, c. 517), it was provided that appeals or writs of error might be taken from the district courts or from the circuit courts direct to the supreme court in six classes of cases, one of which classes was 'cases of conviction of a capital or otherwise infamous crime'; and by section 6, that the circuit courts of appeals should exercise appellate jurisdiction to review, by appeal or writ of error, final judgments of the district courts and the circuit courts 'in all cases other than those provided for in the preceding section of this act, unless otherwise provided by law. And the judgments or decrees of the circuit courts of appeals shall be final in all cases in which the jurisdiction is dependent entirely upon the opposite parties to the suit or controversy being aliens and citizens of the United States or citizens of different states; also in all cases arising under the patent laws, the revenue laws or under the criminal laws, and in admiralty cases.'

In harmony with previous legislation (25 Stat. 784, c. 333; 26 Stat. 99, c. 182 § 42), section 13 of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 829, c. 517), provides: 'Appeals and writs of error may be taken and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Mulloney v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • November 7, 1935
    ...Walt, 128 U. S. 393, 9 S. Ct. 111, 32 L. Ed. 485; In re Claasen, 140 U. S. 200, 11 S. Ct. 735, 35 L. Ed. 409; Folsom v. United States, 160 U. S. 121, 16 S. Ct. 222, 40 L. Ed. 363; Sheridan v. United States (C. C. A.) 236 F. 305, 309, 310, certiorari denied, 243 U. S. 638, 37 S. Ct. 402, 61 ......
  • Ex parte Moran
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 1, 1906
    ... 144 F. 594 Ex parte MORAN. No. 59. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. March 1, 1906 ... (Syllabus by the ... the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in cases of a conviction of a ... capital crime. Folsom v. U.S., 160 U.S. 121, 126, ... 127, 16 Sup.Ct. 222, 40 L.Ed. 363. It will be seen that ... ...
  • Sheridan v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • October 16, 1916
    ... ... The ... court there said of the crime denounced in section 5209: ... 'In ... determining whether the crime is infamous, the question is ... whether it is one for which the statute authorizes the ... court to award an infamous punishment.' ... [236 F. 310] ... In Folsom v. United States, 160 U.S. 121, 16 ... Sup.Ct. 222, 40 L.Ed. 363, the court said: ... 'The ... offense denounced by section 5209 of the Revised Statutes ... is punishable by imprisonment not less than five nor more ... than ten years, and is therefore an infamous crime.' ... ...
  • United States v. Davenport
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • June 5, 1920
    ... ... declaration that the crime defined is a misdemeanor, has been ... held to be one for which an infamous punishment may be ... awarded, thereby fixing its grade as that of felony. ( In ... re Claasen, 140 U.S. 200, 11 Sup.Ct. 735, 35 L.Ed. 409; ... Folsom v. United States, 160 U.S. 121, 16 Sup.Ct ... 222, 40 L.Ed. 363; Sheridan v. United States, 236 F ... 309, 149 C.C.A. 437; also section 335, Penal Code, defining ... felony (Comp. St. Sec. 10509). So that by the common law, and ... by force of the very statute referred to, the offense is ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT