Coleman v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 14 February 1939 |
| Citation | 276 Ky. 802 |
| Parties | Coleman v. Commonwealth. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Criminal Law. — The penalty imposed by habitual criminal statutes being but a severer punishment for last crime only, the statutes are consonant with constitutional guarantees relating to jeopardy and other constitutional protections (Ky. Stats., sec. 1130).
2. Criminal Law. — In prosecution for housebreaking, where there was evidence that defendant had been convicted of previous crimes, omitting from instructions authority for jury to fix defendant's punishment within limits prescribed for housebreaking, was error, since it was within discretion of jury whether it would impose a penalty within such limits or impose a severer penalty (Ky. Stats., secs. 1130, 1162).
3. Criminal Law. — The previous crimes and the one with which accused is presently charged must have been committed progressively after each conviction to make accused subject to penalty provided by habitual criminal statute, and the indictment, evidence, and instructions should make that status clear (Ky. Stats., sec. 1130).
Appeal from Henry Circuit Court.
LEWIS D. JONES for appellant.
HUBERT MEREDITH, Attorney General, and J.M. CAMPBELL, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Reversing.
The appeal is from a conviction of housebreaking and sentence of imprisonment for life under the habitual criminal statute. Section 1130.
The indictment charged and the evidence proved the appellant, Frank Coleman, guilty of breaking and entering a dwelling house and stealing a revolver. They also established that he was convicted of the crime of housebreaking in September, 1926, and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, and of the crime of maliciously stabbing and wounding another with the intent to kill in September, 1932, and sentenced to one year's imprisonment, and that neither judgment had been modified or vacated.
The first instruction submitted the question of guilt of the principal crime in the usual form but omitted to provide that any penalty should or could be imposed if the jury found the defendant guilty. The second instruction submitted that if the jury, having found the defendant guilty of housebreaking as charged, should further believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he had been convicted of the previous crime of housebreaking in 1926, and of malicious stabbing and wounding in 1932, they should fix the penalty at imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.
The animating purpose of inflicting penalties for violation of the criminal law is not, in modern thought, a spirit of vengeance but reformation of the culprit, if it seems possible, and protection of society. So it is that in relatively recent years what is known as habitual criminal statutes have been enacted in order that one who persists in the commission of crime may be put away permanently and the state rid itself of the depravity when its efforts to reform have failed. Herndon v. Commonwealth, 105 Ky. 197, 48 S.W. 989, 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1114, 88 Am. St. Rep. 303; 8 R.C.L. 271. As being but a severer punishment for the last crime only, the statutes are sustained as consonant with constitutional guaranties relating to jeopardy and other protective shields. Mount v. Commonwealth, 63 Ky. 93, 2 Duv. 93; Herndon v. Commonwealth, supra; Hyser v. Commonwealth, 116 Ky. 410, 76 S.W. 174, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 608; Brown v. Commonwealth, 119 Ky. 670, 61 S.W. 4, 22 Ky. Law Rep. 1582; McIntyre v. Commonwealth, 154 Ky. 149, 156 S.W. 1058; Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616, 32 S. Ct. 583, 56 L. Ed. 917; Commonwealth v. McDermott, 224 Pa. 363, 73 A. 427, 24 L.R.A., N.S., 431; Jones v. State, 9 Okl. Cr. 646, 133 P. 249, 48 L.R. A., N.S., 204. Even if former convictions be conclusively established, it is yet within the discretion of the jury whether it will impose a penalty within the statutory limits prescribed for the single crime for which the accused is then being tried, or because of the aggravation and repetition of crime it will augment the punishment by inflicting the severer penalty. Thus, in Hall v. Commonwealth, 106 Ky. 894, 51 S.W. 814, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 520, the jury returned two verdicts, one finding the defendant guilty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial