Duncan v. State
| Decision Date | 12 March 1894 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,038,1,038 |
| Citation | 14 S.Ct. 570,152 U.S. 377,38 L.Ed. 485 |
| Parties | DUNCAN v. STATE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Indictment in a court of the state of Missouri against Harry Duncan for murder. A judgment of conviction was rendered, and was affirmed on appeal by one of the divisions of the supreme court of the state, (22 S. W. 699,) which also denied an application by defendant for a rehearing, and a subsequent application by him for a transfer of the cause to the full bench, on the ground that a federal question was involved. Defendant brings error.
Under the constitution of Missouri, in force at the time of the commission of the homicide to which this case relates, the judicial power of that state was vested in a supreme court and other inferior courts as therein mentioned, the supreme court consisting of five judges, any three of whom constituted a quorum. Const Mo. 1875, art. 6.
In 1889 the general assembly of Missouri passed a concurrent resolution, submitting to the qualified voters of the state an amendment to the constitution, concerning the judicial department, to be voted upon at the general election to be held on the Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, A. D. 1890, which vote was had accordingly, and the amendment ratified and adopted. This amendment provided, among other things, as follows:
All provisions of the constitution of the state, and all laws thereof, not consistent with the amendment, were declared rescinded upon its adoption.
In accordance with the amendment, the supreme court became thereafter composed of seven members, (two being added as provided,) divided into divisions 1 and 2.
Harry Duncan was indicated at the January term, 1891, of the St. Louis criminal court, for the murder of one James Brady, October 6, 1890, and, after he had been arraigned and pleaded not guilty, the cause was removed, on his application, to the circuit court of St. Louis county, wherein it was tried at September term, 1892, and resulted in his conviction, and sentence to death. From this judgment he prosecuted an appeal to the supreme court, where the cause was heard by division No. 2. The errors assigned on Duncan's behalf embraced the various points which had been saved upon the trial, but no federal question was raised either in the appellate or the trial court. The supreme court, division No. 2, on May 16, 1893, delivered an opinion discussing the errors relied on, (reported in advance of the official series, 22 S. W. 699,) and affirmed the judgment. On May 26th, Duncan applied for a rehearing, which was denied May 30th. No reference to any federal question was made in the opinion or in the application for a rehearing.
Thereupon, June 7th, a motion was filed on behalf of Duncan for the transfer of the cause to the supreme court in banc, upon the grounds that the cause was determined solely by a minority of the supreme court; that a federal question was involved, in that the amendment to the constitution of Missouri was in conflict with the constitution of the United States; that the offense with which Duncan stood charged was committed October 6, 1890, and before the adoption of the amendment, and that said amendment and the proceedings thereunder were in violation of section 10, art. 1, of the constitution of the United States inhibiting the passage of ex post facto laws, and in contravention of the fourteenth amendment, in that thereby the privileges and immunities of appellant were abridged; he was denied the equal protection of the laws, and would be deprived of life without due process of law; and that such amendment and proceedings were in conflict with fundamental principles. The motion was denied, and subsequently this writ of error was allowed by the chief justice, and now comes before the court on a motion to dismiss.
R. F. Walker, Atty. Gen., Mo., for the motion.
Emanuel M. Hewlett, opposed.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The amendment to the constitution of the state of Missouri provided for the separation of the supreme court into two divisions for the transaction of business, and that, when a federal question was involved, the cause, on the application of the losing party, should be transferred to the full court for decision. Doubtless the particular division would direct, of its own motion, the transfer of cases involving a federal ques- tion without a hearing in the first instance, as was also allowed by the amendment, but to justify transfer, whether before or after judgment, the question must be involved in the sense of arising for decision.
But it is conceded that the record in this cause as it came into the supreme court, division No. 2,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kolkman v. People
... ... violated and his right to a separate trial under the law of ... the land and the statutes of the State of Colorado will be ... We have ... held that, unless the bill of exceptions discloses the ... admission of prejudicial evidence, no ... 35, 19 L.Ed. 573; or which abolishes a ... court for hearing criminal appeals, creating a new one in ... its stead. See Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382, 14 ... S.Ct. 570, 38 L.Ed. 485 ... 'Just ... what alterations of procedure will be held to be of ... ...
-
Diefendorf v. Gallet
... 10 P.2d 307 51 Idaho 619 BEN DIEFENDORF, Tax Commissioner of the State of Idaho, Plaintiff, v. E. G. GALLET, State Auditor of the State of Idaho, Defendant No. 5859 Supreme Court of Idaho March 11, 1932 ... 861; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U.S. 462, 11 S.Ct. 577, 35 ... L.Ed. 225; Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 13 S.Ct ... 721, 37 L.Ed. 599; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, ... 14 S.Ct. 570, 38 L.Ed. 485; Florida C. & P. R. Co. v ... Reynolds, 183 U.S. 471, 22 S.Ct. 176, 46 L.Ed. 283; ... ...
-
State v. Jess
...rights'") (quoting Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U.S. 180, 183, 35 S.Ct. 507, 59 L.Ed. 905 (1915); Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382-83, 14 S.Ct. 570, 38 L.Ed. 485 (1894)). Hankerson v. State, 723 N.W.2d 232 (Minn.2006), is an apt illustration of the foregoing principle. In Hankerson, t......
-
Hallock v. United States
... ... Oklahoma. The indictment was not found nor the trial had ... until after that territory and the Indian Territory were ... admitted as the state of Oklahoma. The organic act of the ... territory of Oklahoma in force when the offenses were ... committed required their prosecution and trial in ... court of five justices the hearing is before a division ... [185 F. 421] ... of the court composed of three out of seven justices ... ( Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 14 Sup.Ct. 570, ... 38 L.Ed. 485); changing the place of trial from one county to ... another in the same district or ... ...
-
It's an ex post facto fact: Supreme Court misapplies the ex post facto clause to criminal procedure.
...v. New York, 170 U.S. 189, 201 (1898) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565, 589-90 (1896); Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894); Hopt v. Territory of Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 589 (1884); Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221, 228 (1883), rev'd on other grounds, Collins......
-
Black Lawyers of Missouri: 150 Years of Progress and Promise.
...(133.) SMITH, supra note 7, at 332. (134.) Marshall D. Hier, Duncan Shot a Hole in Brady's Breast, 50 ST. LOUIS B.J. 40, 41 (2003). (135.) 152 U.S. 377 (136.) Hier, supra note 134, at 42. (137.) Id. (138.) Id. at 42-43. (139.) Id. at 43; SMITH, supra note 7, at 332; see also Jae Jones, WALT......