Dixon v. State
| Decision Date | 31 December 1847 |
| Citation | 2 Tex. 481 |
| Parties | WILLIAM DIXON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Polk County.
Fines imposed for a violation of the laws, for the punishment of crimes and misdemeanors, are not debts within the scope and meaning of that provision of the constitution which prohibits imprisonment for debt.
The 47th section of the act of 1836 for “punishing crimes and misdemeanors,” which provides that “For all fines assessed and costs of prosecution in criminal cases not capital, the person convicted may stand committed to prison by the order of the court until such fine and costs be paid,” etc., is not unconstitutional.
No appearance for appellant.
Harris, Attorney General, for the state.
The appellant was convicted under the first section of the act of 1840 “to suppress gaming.” 4 Stat. 106. The jury fixed his punishment at imprisonment for one day, and a fine of fifty dollars. Whereupon he was committed to prison for one day, and until he should pay the amount of fine assessed by the jury.
Subsequently, the fine and costs not having been paid, the prisoner moved the court to discharge him from custody, which the court refused, and the prisoner appealed.
The act “punishing crimes and misdemeanors,” 1 Stat. 187, sec. 47, provides that “For all fines assessed and costs of prosecution in criminal cases not capital, the person convicted may stand committed to prison by order of the court until such fine and costs be paid; and when it shall be made to appear to the court that the person so committed hath no estate or means to pay such fine and costs, it shall be the duty of the court to discharge such person from further imprisonment for such fine and costs, as in its discretion may deem proper.”
We are required to pass upon the constitutionality of this provision; and it is supposed to conflict with that provision of the constitution which prohibits imprisonment for debt. Const. art. 1, sec. 15.
The words “imprisonment for debt” have a well defined and well known meaning, and have never been understood or held to apply to criminal proceedings. 4 Hill, 581;5 Id. 605;15 Wend. 461. It is not to be supposed, and it will scarcely be contended, that it ever entered into the minds of the framers of the constitution that they were to be understood as having any application to the administration of the criminal laws, or that they were to have the effect to prevent the punishment of crimes. It was well known to them that the abolition of imprisonment for debt in other states, where it had been effected, had been held to consist with the enactment of laws for the punishment by imprisonment of criminal frauds perpetrated to avoid the payment of debts. How, then, can it be supposed that they intended that it should extend to the prevention of imprisonment for other crimes, when no such inference is deducible from the language employed? It could not have been their intention to degrade the subject of misfortune to the level of the criminal, and to confound debt with crime. There is nothing to be found in the legislation of the country to warrant such a supposition. On the contrary, they have been made the subject of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Chambers
...penalties for criminal contempt with imprisonment. See Thompson v. State, 557 S.W.2d 521, 524-25 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Dixon v. State, 2 Tex. 481, 483 (1847). In 1847 this Court stated: The words "imprisonment for debt" have a well defined and well known meaning, and have never been understo......
-
State v. Kilmer
... ... The courts, indeed, have everywhere held that ... imprisonment as an alternative for the payment of a fine is ... not an imprisonment for debt, and the same principles apply ... in the case of costs which are imposed as a part of a fine, ... and as a penalty for the transgression. Dixon v ... State, 2 Tex. 481, 482; Bailey v. State, 87 ... Ala. 44, 6 So. 398; Morgan v. State, 47 Ala. 34; Re ... Boyd, 34 Kan. 570, 9 P. 240 ... The ... second assignment of error is that "the court erred in ... assuming the jurisdiction of the case, for the reason that no ... ...
-
State v. Kilmer
...the same principles apply in the case of costs, which are imposed as a part of a fine and as a penalty for the transgression. Dixon v. State, 2 Tex. 481, 482;Bailey v. State, 87 Ala. 44, 6 South. 398;Morgan v. State, 47 Ala. 34;In re Boyd, 34 Kan. 570, 9 Pac. 240. [2] The second assignment ......
-
Ex parte Gonzales
...of the laws and for a refusal to submit to the penalty imposed.Ex parte Robertson, 27 Tex.App. 628, 11 S.W. 669 (1889); Dixon v. State, 2 Tex. 481 (1847).5 Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 1.051 provides in pertinent part(a) A defendant in a criminal matter is entitled to be represented by coun......