Crossley v. State of California
| Citation | 18 S.Ct. 242,168 U.S. 640,42 L.Ed. 610 |
| Decision Date | 03 January 1898 |
| Docket Number | No. 470,470 |
| Parties | CROSSLEY et al. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
W. F. Fitzgerald and W. H. Anderson, for appellees.
Worden was convicted in the superior court of the county of Yolo, Cal., of the crime of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to be hanged. The supreme court of Cali- fornia affirmed the judgment. People v. Worden, 113 Cal. 569, 45 Pac. 844.
Being in custody, awaiting execution, an application for the writ of habeas corpus was made on behalf of Worden to the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of California, the application denied, and the petition dismissed. The case was then brought to this court.
Two grounds were relied on as justifying the issue of the writ:
First. That there was no evidence that Worlen was guilty of murder in the first degree; that the evidence showed, or tended to show, that he was guilty, at most, of murder in the second degree; and that the trial court only submitted to the jury the question as to whether or not he was guilty of murder in the first degree. This was matter of error, and with its disposition by the highest tribunal of the state it was not within the province of the circuit court to interfere. Nor can the writ of habeas corpus be made use of as a writ of error.
Second. That the state courts had no jurisdiction because Worden was convicted of the murder of one Clark, committed by derailing a train of which Clark was the engineer; that this was a special train 'exclusively engaged in the carrying or transportation of the mail of the United States'; that the effect of the derailment 'constituted an obstruction or stopping of the transmission of United States mail, and was a restraint and retarding of the interstate commerce of the United States'; that he, therefore, was guilty, if at all, of offenses against the laws of the United States (sections 3995, 5440, Rev. St.; Act July 2, 1890,-26 Stat. 209, c. 647); and that any offense committed by him was solely cognizable in the courts of the United States.
But it is settled law that the same act may constitute an offense against the United States and against a state, subjecting the guilty party to punishment under the laws of each government, and may embrace two or more offenses. Cross v. North Carolina, 132 U. S. 131, 10 Sup. Ct. 47, and cases cited. And see Teal v. Felton, 12 How. 284, 292.
There is no statut...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Nelson
...47, 33 L.Ed. 287; Pettibone v. United States, 148 U.S. 197, 209, 13 S.Ct. 542, 37 L.Ed. 419; Crossley v. People of State of California, 168 U.S. 640, 18 S.Ct. 242, 42 L.Ed. 610; Southern Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission of Indiana, 236 U.S. 439, 445, 35 S.Ct. 304, 59 L.Ed. 661; Gilbert v.......
-
Abbate v. United States
...585, 33 L.Ed. 949; Pettibone v. United States, 148 U.S. 197, 209, 13 S.Ct. 542, 547, 37 L.Ed. 419; Crossley v. People of State of California, 168 U.S. 640, 641, 18 S.Ct. 242, 42 L.Ed. 610; Sexton v. People of State of California, 189 U.S. 319, 322—323, 23 S.Ct. 543, 544—545, 47 L.Ed. 833; M......
-
Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois
...372, 10 S.Ct. 584, 33 L.Ed. 949; Pettibone v. United States, 148 U.S. 197, 13 S.Ct. 542, 37 L.Ed. 419; Crossley v. People of State of California, 168 U.S. 640, 18 S.Ct. 242, 42 L.Ed. 610; Sexton v. People of State of California, 189 U.S. 319, 23 S.Ct. 543, 47 L.Ed. 833; Matter of Heff, 197 ......
-
United States v. Hendricks
...293, 16 S. Ct. 304, 40 L.Ed. 432; Craemer v. Washington State, 1897, 168 U.S. 124, 18 S. Ct. 1, 42 L.Ed. 407; Crossley v. California, 1898, 168 U.S. 640, 18 S.Ct. 242, 42 L.Ed. 610; Storti v. Massachusetts, 1901, 183 U.S. 138, 22 S.Ct. 72, 46 L.Ed. 120; Rogers v. Peck, 1905, 199 U.S. 425, 2......