Com. v. Brown
Decision Date | 20 June 1890 |
Citation | 152 Mass. 1,24 N.E. 857 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. BROWN. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Francis P. Curran, for petitioner.
Thos W. Proctor, for the Commonwealth.
The question presented in this case is whether the municipal courts within the city of Boston have jurisdiction of the offense punishable under Pub.St. c. 207, § 1. Pub.St. c. 154 § 50, provides that the criminal jurisdiction of the municipal courts within the city of Boston "shall include all crimes under the degree of felony." Pub.St. c. 210, § 1, is in these words: "Any crime punishable by death or imprisonment in the state-prison is a felony, and no other crime shall be so considered." If the crime of which the defendant was convicted is punishable by imprisonment in the state-prison the court did not have jurisdiction of it. The punishment prescribed is "by imprisonment in the state-prison not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by both fine and imprisonment in the jail." Pub.St. c. 207, § 1. A sentence to the state-prison must be to confinement at hard labor, and must include a term of solitary imprisonment. Pub.St. c. 215, § 23. The provision for imprisonment in the state-prison for not more than one year must be construed in connection with the following provisions of Pub.St. c. 215: Under these provisions a convict whose only prescribed punishment is by imprisonment in the state-prison for a term of years, if the term actually awarded is less than three years, must undergo his sentence of confinement to hard labor and solitary imprisonment in the jail or house of correction, and cannot be sentenced to imprisonment in the state-prison. Section 23 of the same chapter prescribes the form of sentence when "the punishment of imprisonment in the state-prison is awarded." Taking the words "punished by imprisonment in the state-prison not exceeding one year," in chapter 207, § 1, in connection with the provisions of chapter 215, it is not an unreasonable construction of chapter 207, § 1, that the form of sentence prescribed by chapter 215, § 23, shall be awarded to be executed in the jail or house of correction. This is in accordance with sections 15 and 17, under which, when women or boys, in certain cases, are convicted of offenses punishable only by imprisonment in the state-prison, and sentence is awarded against them, the court is required to order the sentence to be executed in the jail, and not in the state-prison. See Com. v. Wyman, 12 Cush. 237.
Had the 215th chapter been passed after the first section of the 207th chapter, there can be no question that it would have prohibited a sentence to the state-prison under the provision of the latter. The provisions were simultaneously enacted in the Public Statutes, but were intended as re-enactments, in substance, and not as modifications of pre-existing statutes. The meaning of the statutes before their enactment in the Public Statutes will aid in showing their meaning there. Pub.St. c. 210, § 1, defining "felony," was first enacted in St.1852, c. 37. Pub.St. c. 207, § 1, was first...
To continue reading
Request your trial