Bell v. State
| Decision Date | 18 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-262,83-262 |
| Citation | 693 P.2d 769 |
| Parties | Vern Loren BELL, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Leonard D. Munker, State Public Defender, Sylvia Lee Hackl, Appellate Counsel, and David E. Erickson, Asst. Public Defender, Wyoming Public Defender Program for appellant; oral argument by Mr. Erickson.
A.G. McClintock, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., and Michael A. Blonigen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee; oral argument by Blonigen.
Before THOMAS *, C.J., and ROSE, ROONEY **, BROWN, and CARDINE, JJ.
Appellant Vern Loren Bell appeals from the habitual criminal enhanced penalty imposed following his conviction of involuntary manslaughter. We affirm.
Appellant's wife was badly beaten on July 15, 1983. She subsequently died from these injuries. Appellant was charged with and convicted of involuntary manslaughter and his sentence was enhanced upon his being found an habitual criminal. He is not appealing his involuntary manslaughter conviction. Appellant contends only that the enhanced penalty, provided by the habitual criminal statute § 6-10-201, ante, is a violation of constitutional guarantees of equal protection and, therefore, is unconstitutional.
The crime of involuntary manslaughter is found in § 6-2-105(a)(ii)(A), W.S.1977, which provides:
The provision for penalty enhancement is found in § 6-10-201, W.S.1977, which is as follows:
The underlying conviction for an enhanced penalty under the habitual criminal statute must be a violent felony which is defined by § 6-1-104(a)(xii), W.S.1977, as:
" 'Violent felony' means murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first or second degree, robbery, aggravated assault, aircraft hijacking, arson in the first or second degree or aggravated burglary."
Section 6-2-106(b), W.S.1977, Cum.Supp.1984, aggravated vehicular homicide, not included as a violent felony for sentence enhancement purposes, provides as follows:
"A person is guilty of aggravated homicide by vehicle and shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than twenty (20) years, if, while driving a motor vehicle in violation of W.S. 31-5-233, he unlawfully causes the death of another person and the violation is the proximate cause of the death."
Section 31-5-233, W.S.1977, makes it unlawful to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any controlled substance to a degree which renders the operator incapable of safely driving the vehicle.
The question we are presented is whether our habitual criminal statute, § 6-10-201, supra, violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional because it includes manslaughter within the definition of violent felonies but does not include aggravated vehicular homicide.
Appellant is not contending that the legislature is without power to prescribe punishment for criminal offenses. Evans v. State, Wyo., 655 P.2d 1214, 1223 (1982). Nor is he challenging the constitutionality of habitual criminal statutes. Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 87 S.Ct. 648, 17 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967); Moore v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673, 16 S.Ct. 179, 40 L.Ed. 301 (1895).
Equal protection guarantees that similar people will be dealt with similarly and that people in different circumstances will not be treated as though they were similar. Nowak, Rotunda and Young, Constitutional Law, (2nd ed. 1983), p. 587.
There must be some difference which furnishes a reasonable basis for different legislation pertaining to different classes. United States Steel Corporation v. Wyoming Environmental Quality Council, Wyo., 575 P.2d 749 (1978). The differences involved must not be arbitrary and without a just relation to the matter being legislated. Mountain Fuel Supply Company v. Emerson, Wyo., 578 P.2d 1351 (1978).
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, 348 U.S. 483, 75 S.Ct. 461, 465, 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955).
Legislative burdens which are underinclusive are not reviewed as strictly by the court as overinclusive statutes because the people who are burdened by the classification are properly identified. Nowak, Rotunda and Young, supra, p. 589. Appellate courts
" * * * should grant substantial deference to the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and limits of punishments for crimes, as well as to the discretion the trial courts possess in sentencing convicted criminals." Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983).
Equal protection does not require exact equality. Only discrimination which is arbitrary and invidious is prohibited. State v. Laude, Wyo., 654 P.2d 1223 (1982); Cavanagh v. State, Wyo., 505 P.2d 311 (1973). Acts which have a greater social impact and graver consequences may have more severe penalties. People v. Thatcher, Colo., 638 P.2d 760 (1981). The State has a legitimate interest in discouraging specific evils which are believed to be of greater social consequences. People v. Hulse, 192 Colo. 302, 557 P.2d 1205 (1976).
"Normally, the widest discretion is allowed the legislative judgment in determining whether to attack some, rather than all, of the manifestations of the evil aimed at; and normally that judgment is given the benefit of every conceivable circumstance which might suffice to characterize the classification as reasonable rather than arbitrary and invidious."
McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 85 S.Ct. 283, 288, 13 L.Ed.2d 222 (1964).
The legislature included involuntary manslaughter within the definition of a violent felony. A death occurring during the commission of an unlawful act, therefore, can, by enhancement, result in a punishment of life imprisonment. The legislature did not include as a violent felony death resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle driven while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. The statute is underinclusive and, if there is a reasonable basis for this exclusion, it will be upheld.
The purpose of the habitual criminal statute is to remove from society repeat offenders who commit a violent felony. An automobile driver who becomes involved in an accident resulting in death as a result of the driver's intoxication is guilty of a felony. The driver is not, however, guilty of the kind of violent felony the legislature has classified as necessary to sentence enhancement pursuant to the habitual criminal statute. The automobile is an integral part of our society. It is thought of as a necessity; and it may be so. We are licensed to drive in our teens and continue driving most of our lives. Drinking alcoholic beverages, at least socially, is unfortunately also a common occurrence. These activities involve a large segment of the generally law-abiding community who are not repeat offenders, and when an accident and death occurs while operating a motor vehicle, it is appropriate to classify the offense differently from the enumerated violent felonies. Legislative classifications will be upheld as long as the differences are reasonably related to the objects or the persons dealt with and to the public purpose sought to be achieved by the legislation. People v. Marcy, Colo., 628 P.2d 69 (1981); People v. Taggart, Colo., 621 P.2d 1375 (1981). The classification in this case is reasonable and does not offend due process.
Statutes carry a presumption of constitutionality. Carfield v. State, Wyo., 649 P.2d 865 (1982); Sorenson v. State, Wyo., 604 P.2d 1031 (1979). All reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of constitutionality. Nimmo v. State, Wyo., 603 P.2d 386 (1979). The alleged unconstitutionality must be shown clearly and exactly beyond a reasonable doubt. Nickelson v. People, Wyo., 607 P.2d 904 (1980).
Other jurisdictions have looked at the question of equal protection as it applies to criminal offenses. State ex rel. Zander v. District Court of Fourth Judicial District in and for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. State, s. 94-237
...classification are subject initially to the same discretion and, at that juncture, all in the class are treated alike. Bell v. State, 693 P.2d 769 (Wyo.1985). Hansen, after the oral argument, called our attention to State v. Mohi, 901 P.2d 991 (Utah 1995), which has not yet been released fo......
-
Mills v. Reynolds
...afforded the co-employee, there seems no prospect of supporting the claim of a deprivation of equal protection. See Bell v. State, 693 P.2d 769 (Wyo.1985). Cf. Small, 689 P.2d 420 (statute not violating equal protection merely because it could have included other The difficulty of identifyi......
-
Hoem v. State
...for she has failed in her burden of presenting evidence that will demonstrate unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. Bell v. State, Wyo., 693 P.2d 769 (1985). In Meyer v. Kendig, Wyo., 641 P.2d 1235 (1982), we said that in determining the constitutionality of a statute, we were gove......
-
Johnson v. State Hearing Examiner's Office
..."Equal protection does not require exact equality. Only discrimination which is arbitrary and invidious is prohibited." Bell v. State, 693 P.2d 769, 771 (Wyo.1985). Appellants here have raised claims under both the United States and Wyoming Constitutions. This court has held these respectiv......