John Sexton v. People of the State of California

Citation189 U.S. 319,47 L.Ed. 833,23 S.Ct. 543
Decision Date06 April 1903
Docket NumberNo. 155,155
PartiesJOHN E. SEXTON, Plff. in Err. , v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the superior court of the county of El Dorado, California, of the crime of extortion. Judgment was entered, and, upon appeal to the supreme court of California, it was there affirmed, and the plaintiff in error brings the case here for review.

The indictment upon which the conviction was had alleged that on June 20, 1898, at the county of El Dorado, state of California, one S. H. Briggs and the plaintiff in error—'. . . did wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously obtain from one C. Greenwald certain personal property consisting of money, the property of the said C. Greenwald, to the amount and value of $30, with the consent of said Greenwald, induced by the wrongful use and exercise upon him of fear by means of a threat then and there made by the said John E. Sexton and S. H. Briggs to accuse him, the said Greenwald, of the crime of having, in violation of the laws of the United States of America, sold and delivered cigars in a form other than in a new box not before used for the purpose of packing cigars therein, contrary to the form, force, and effect of the statute in such case made and provided.'

After the finding of this indictment the defendant Sexton moved the court to set it aside on various grounds, the ninth being that the court had no jurisdiction of the offense charged in the indictment, nor of the person of the defendant, and it was contended that the Federal court alone had jurisdiction over the act for which he was indicted in the state court. The motion was denied, and the defendant then pleaded not guilty. Upon the trial the jury found the defendant guilty, as charged in the indictment, and he was sentenced to be imprisoned in the state's prison for the term of two years.

Messrs. James Parker, George D. Collins, and John E. Sexton in propria persona for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Henry H. Glassie, R. Woodland Gates, U. S. FOR DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court:

The record now before us raises but a single question for our determination, and that is whether the state court, upon the facts alleged in the indictment, had any jurisdiction over the subject-matter.

The plaintiff in error contends that the right of the general government to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of which he was convicted is exclusive, and therefore the state court had no right to try him upon the indictment found in that court.

The act which the plaintiff in error is alleged to have threatened to accuse Greenwald of committing is mentioned in § 3392 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2219), which makes it an offense to sell cigars unless in new boxes, with the exception therein detailed. Having created the offense above described, Congress also provided for the punishment of the offense of extortion by threats to accuse an individual of a violation of the provisions of that among other sections of the internal revenue law.

Sec. 5484, Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3702), provides that——

'Every person who shall receive any money or other valuable thing under a threat of informing or as a consideration for not informing against any violation of any internal revenue law shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, at the discretion of the court, with costs of prosecution.'

The provision prohibiting the sale of cigars in any but new boxes is part of the internal revenue law.

By the 20th subdivision of § 629, Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 507), there is given to the United States circuit courts——

'Exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States, except where it is or may be otherwise provided by law, and concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts of crimes and offenses cognizable therein.'

The Revised Statutes also provide:

'Sec. 711. The jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States in the cases and proceedings hereinafter mentioned shall be exclusive of the courts of the several states:

'First. Of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States.' (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 577.)

Upon these various statutes the plaintiff in error founds his contention that, as the offense which it is alleged in the indictment he threatened to accuse Greenwald of having committed is one which exists solely under § 3392 of the Revised Statutes which creates it, and as § 5484 provides the penalty for extorting money by threatening to inform or as a consideration for not informing against any violation of that law, the authority to punish for extorting upon such grounds is exclusively in the Federal courts.

On the other hand, it is claimed upon the part of the state that the offense of which the plaintiff in error has been convicted was one against the state, under §§ 518 and 519 of the Penal Code of the state of California.

Those sections provide that——

'Sec. 518. Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.

'Sec. 519. Fear such as will constitute extortion may be induced by a threat, either:

* * * * *

'2. To accuse him, or any relative of his or member of his family, of any crime.'

Upon this subject the supreme court of California said:

'In substance it may be said that defendant threatened to accuse Greenwald of violating the United States revenue laws, and under fear induced by such threat secured from Greenwald the aforesaid sum of $30. It is insisted that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense against the laws of the state of California, but, upon the contrary, constitute a crime exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. We find nothing in this contention. The defendant is charged with the crime of extortion, an offense directly within the jurisdiction of the state courts. He is not charged with a violation of a Federal statute, but with a violation of a state statute. He threatened to accuse a man with the commission of a crime. It makes no difference if that crime be one solely triable in the Federal courts, for defendant is not being tried for that crime. If he had threatened to have Greenwald arrested upon the charge of counterfeiting the money of this country, and was charged with the crime of extortion for that reason, clearly his offense would be one against the laws of this state. It would be extortion as defined by the Penal Code of this state, and this court would not be concerned as to whether or not defendant's crime was also punishable under Federal laws. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Abbate v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 30 Marzo 1959
    ...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; Matter of Heff, 197 U.S. 488, 507, 25 S.Ct. 506, 511, 49 L.Ed. 848; Grafton v. United States, 2......
  • Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 30 Marzo 1959
    ...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 U.S. 488, 25 S.Ct. 506, 49 L.Ed. 848; Grafton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333, 27 S.C......
  • Commonwealth v. Nickerson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 17 Septiembre 1920
    ...445, 446, 35 Sup. Ct. 304, 59 L. Ed. 661. See State v. Tachin, 92 N. J. Law, 269, 106 Atl. 145. The facts in Sexton v. California, 189 U. S. 319, 23 Sup. Ct. 543, 47 L. Ed. 833, were these: Extortion for falsely threatening to accuse one of selling cigars in old boxes was made a crime by fe......
  • Com. v. Nelson
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • 25 Enero 1954
    ...43 S.Ct. 132, 67 L.Ed. 301; Hebert v. State of Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 47 S.Ct. 103, 71 L.Ed. 270; Sexton v. People of State of California, 189 U.S. 319, 23 S.Ct. 543, 47 L.Ed. 833; Westfall v. United States, 274 U.S. 256, 47 S.Ct. 629, 71 L.Ed. 1036; Com. ex rel. Garland v. Ashe, 344 Pa. ......
  • 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