Beazell v. State of Ohio Chatfield v. Same

Decision Date16 November 1925
Docket NumberNos. 247,248,s. 247
Citation70 L.Ed. 216,46 S.Ct. 68,269 U.S. 167
PartiesBEAZELL v. STATE OF OHIO et al. CHATFIELD v. SAME
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Province M. Pogue and Harry M. Hoffheimer, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff in error Beazell.

Mr. Frank F. Dinsmore, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff in error Chatfield.

Mr. John Wilson Brown, III, of Washington, D. C., for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiffs in error were jointly indicted in the court of common pleas of Hamilton county, Ohio, for the crime of embezzlement, a felony. On February 13, 1923, the date of the offense as charged, Ohio General Code, § 13677, provided:

'When two or more persons are jointly indicted for a felony, on application to the court for that purpose, each shall be tried separately.'

In April of the same year, before the indictment, which was returned on October 25, this section was amended (110 Ohio Laws, p. 301) so as to provide 'When two or more persons are jointly indicted for a felony, except a capital offense, they shall be tried jointly, unless the court for good cause shown, on application therefor by the prosecuting attorney, or one or more of said defendants order that one or more of said defendants shall be tried separately.'

By another section, the amended act was made applicable to trials for offenses committed before the amendment.

The defendants severally made motions for separate trials on the ground that their defenses would be different, that each would be prejudiced by the introduction of evidence admissible against his codefendant, but inadmissible as to him, and that they were entitled to separate trials as a matter of right, specifically charging that as applied to their own indictment and trial, 'the amendment to the statutes of Ohio making the granting of said application for a separate trial discretionary with the trial court, is an ex post facto law within the restrictions imposed by article 1, § 10, of the Constitution of the United States,' which provides that 'no state shall * * * pass any * * * ex post facto law.'

Both motions were denied, the joint trial and conviction of the defendants followed, and in proceedings duly had in which the constitutional question was raised, their conviction was sustained by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The case comes before this court on motions to dismiss the writs of error or to affirm the judgment below.

It is settled, by decisions of this court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto. The constitutional prohibition and the judicial interpretation of it rest upon the notion that laws, whatever their form, which purport to make innocent acts criminal after the event, or to aggravate an offense, are harsh and oppressive, and that the criminal quality attributable to an act, either by the legal definition of the offense or by the nature or amount of the punishment imposed for its commission, should not be altered by legislative enactment, after the fact, to the disadvantage of the accused.

But the state of Ohio here drawn in question affects only the manner in which the trial of those jointly accused shall be conducted. It does not deprive the plaintiffs in error of any defense previously available, nor affect the criminal quality of the act charged. Nor does it change the legal definition of the offense or the punishment to be meted out. The quantum and kind of proof required to establish guilt, and all questions which may be considered by the court and jury in determining guilt or innocence, remain the same.

Expressions are to be found in earlier judicial opinions to the effect that the constitutional limitation may be transgressed by alterations in the rules of evidence or procedure. See Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390, 1 L. Ed. 648; Cummings v. State of Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 326, 18 L. Ed. 356; Kring v. Missouri, 107 U. S. 221, 228, 232, 2 S. Ct. 443, 27 L. Ed. 506. And there may be procedural changes which operate to deny to the accused a defense available under the laws in force at the time of the commission of his offense, or which otherwise affect him in such a harsh and arbitrary manner...

To continue reading

Request your trial
813 cases
  • United States v. Walker, Crim. A. No. 80-486.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • May 7, 1981
    ...according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto.'") (quoting Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70, 46 S.Ct. 68, 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925)); Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221, 230-31, 2 S.Ct. 443, 451, 27 L.Ed. 506 (1883) ("`No one can be criminally punished ......
  • Wilson v. Superior Court, Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 23, 1982
    ...v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221 [2 S.Ct. 443, 27 L.Ed. 506].) As the United States Supreme Court pointed out in Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 171 [46 S.Ct. 68, 69, 70 L.Ed. 216, 218], the distinction between a procedural change which transgresses the Constitution if given a retroactive applicati......
  • In re Nezirovic
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • September 16, 2013
    ...as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done . . . is prohibited as ex post facto." (quoting Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70 (1925)). Nezirovic asserts that under theExtradition Treaty, therefore, the charges he faces in Bosnia for war crimes and torture are no......
  • Nuh Nhuoc Loi v. Scribner
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • December 2, 2009
    ...1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995), Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) and Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 46 S.Ct. 68, 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925). The United States Supreme Court has consistently rejected ex post facto challenges to recidivism laws which permit enh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Erroneous Injunctions
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 71-6, 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...See U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3; id. art. I, § 10, cl. 1.123. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42 (1990) (quoting Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70 (1925)); Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (Chase, J.).124. See Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 262 (2001); Calder, 3 U......
  • The "Scarlet Letter laws" of the 1990s: a response to critics.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 60 No. 4, June 1997
    • June 22, 1997
    ...before he/she is sentenced, is a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause). (83) See id. at 1602. (84) Id. at 1603 (quoting Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 171 (85) 116 S. Ct. 2135 (1996). (86) See id. at 2146-47 (noting that civil forfeiture under the Excessive Fines Clause does not implicate ......
  • It's an ex post facto fact: Supreme Court misapplies the ex post facto clause to criminal procedure.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 91 No. 2, January 2001
    • January 1, 2001
    ...as before the passage of the statute. The statue did nothing more than remove an obstacle arising out of a rule of evidence...."). (110) 269 U.S. 167 (111) 497 U.S. 37 (1990). (112) See Beazell, 269 U.S. at 170-171. (113) See Collins, 497 U.S. at 43 (explaining that "the Beazell formulation......
  • Garner v. Jones: Restricting Prisoners' Ex Post Facto Challenges to Changes in Parole Systems - Robert A. Renjel
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 52-2, January 2001
    • Invalid date
    ...(1798). 32. Id. at 388-89. 33. Id. at 390. 34. Id. at 388. 35. 134 U.S. 160 (1890). 36. Id. at 171. 37. Id. at 170-72. 38. Id. at 171. 39. 269 U.S. 167 (1925). 40. Id. at 171. 41. Id. at 169-70. 42. Id. at 169. 43. Id. at 169-70. 44. Id. at 170. 45. 301 U.S. 397 (1937). 46. Id. at 398. 47. ......
  • 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