Moore v. State of Missouri, No. 493

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFULLER
Citation16 S.Ct. 179,40 L.Ed. 301,159 U.S. 673
Docket NumberNo. 493
Decision Date25 November 1895
PartiesMOORE v. STATE OF MISSOURI

159 U.S. 673
16 S.Ct. 179
40 L.Ed. 301
MOORE

v.

STATE OF MISSOURI.

No. 493.
November 25, 1895.

[Syllabus from pages 673-675 intentionally omitted]

Page 675

Charles T. Noland, for plaintiff in error.

R. F. Walker and Morton Jourdan, for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

Admitting that the first 10 articles of amendment to the constitution of the United States were adopted as limitations on federal power, it is argued for plaintiff in error that the fundamental rights secured thereby are protected by the fourteenth article of amendment from invasion by the states, in the prohibition of the abridgment of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, of the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and of the denial of the equal protection of the laws; and it is contended that section 3959 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1889 is in violation of that amendment, in that persons are thereby subjected to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, and to cruel and unusual punishment, and deprived of

Page 676

the equal protection of the laws. That section, which is also to be found in the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1879 and the General Statutes of Missouri of 1865, is as follows:

'Sec. 3959. Second Offence, How Punished.—If any person convicted of any offence punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, or of petit larceny, or of any attempt to commit an offence, which, if perpetrated, would be punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, shall be discharged, either upon pardon or upon compliance with the sentence, and shall subsequently be convicted of any offence committed after such pardon or discharge, he shall be punished as follows: First, if such subsequent offence be such that, upon a first conviction, the offender would be punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary for life, or for a term which, under the provisions of this law, might extend to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life, then such person shall be punished by imprisonment for life; second, if such subsequent offence be such that upon a first conviction the offender would be punishable by imprisonment for a limited term of years, then such person shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for the longest term prescribed upon a conviction for such first offence; third, if such subsequent conviction be for petit larceny, or for an attempt to commit an offence which, if perpetrated, would be punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, the person convicted of such subsequent offence shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not exceeding five years.'

Similar provisions have been contained in state statutes for many years, and they have been uniformly sustained by the courts. In the opinion of the supreme court of Missouri it is said: 'The increased severity of the punishment for the subsequent offense is not a punishment for the same offense for the second time, but a severer punishment for the subsequent offense, the law which imposes the increased punishment being presumed to be known by all persons, and to deter those so inclined from the further commission of crime; and we are unable to see how the statute which imposes such increased punishment violates the provisions of our constitu-

Page 677

tion hereinbefore quoted. * * * The fact that the indictment charged a former conviction of another and entirely different offense is not in fact charging him with an offense with respect of the former offense in the case in hand. The averments as to the former offense go as to the punishment only.' And People v. Stanley, 47 Cal. 133; Rand v. Com., 9 Grat. 738; Ross' Case, 2 Pick. 165; Plumbly v. Com., 2 Metc. (Mass.) 413; Ingalls v. State, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
202 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Kaluna, Nos. 96-10527
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 3, 1998
    ...1256, 92 L.Ed. 1683 (1948)); see also Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 559-60, 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). Thus, Kaluna's argument cannot Second, Kaluna contends that the three-strikes statute violates the fundament......
  • Duran v. Castro, No. CIV. S-00-305-LKKJFM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • October 18, 2002
    ...the work of reform for which it was designed," nor has it "evidenced a depravity, which merits greater punishment...." Moore v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673, 677, 16 S.Ct. 179, 40 L.Ed. 301 (1895)(quoting Plumbly v. Commonwealth, 43 Mass. (2 Met.) 413, 1841 WL 3384 (1841)). Petitioner's possessio......
  • Hubbard v. State, 6 Div. 7
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 13, 1986
    ...not violative of the due process clause, Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616 [32 S.Ct. 583, 56 L.Ed. 917] ... (1912); Moore v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673 [16 S.Ct. 179, 40 L.Ed. 301] ... (1895), and do not create an unreasonable classification. McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U.S. 311 [21 S.Ct......
  • Brown v. Mayle, No. 99-17261.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • February 7, 2002
    ...a greater punishment, and needs to be restrained by severer penalties than if it were his first offence.'" Page 1036 Moore v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673, 677, 16 S.Ct. 179, 40 L.Ed. 301 (1895), quoting Plumbly v. Commonwealth, 43 Mass. (2 Met.) 413, 1841 WL 3384 (1841), and People v. Stanley, 4......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
202 cases
  • U.S. v. Kaluna, Nos. 96-10527
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 3, 1998
    ...1256, 92 L.Ed. 1683 (1948)); see also Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 559-60, 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). Thus, Kaluna's argument cannot Second, Kaluna contends that the three-strikes statute violates the fundament......
  • Duran v. Castro, No. CIV. S-00-305-LKKJFM.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • October 18, 2002
    ...the work of reform for which it was designed," nor has it "evidenced a depravity, which merits greater punishment...." Moore v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673, 677, 16 S.Ct. 179, 40 L.Ed. 301 (1895)(quoting Plumbly v. Commonwealth, 43 Mass. (2 Met.) 413, 1841 WL 3384 (1841)). Petitioner's possessio......
  • Hubbard v. State, 6 Div. 7
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 13, 1986
    ...not violative of the due process clause, Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616 [32 S.Ct. 583, 56 L.Ed. 917] ... (1912); Moore v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673 [16 S.Ct. 179, 40 L.Ed. 301] ... (1895), and do not create an unreasonable classification. McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U.S. 311 [21 S.Ct......
  • Brown v. Mayle, No. 99-17261.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • February 7, 2002
    ...a greater punishment, and needs to be restrained by severer penalties than if it were his first offence.'" Page 1036 Moore v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673, 677, 16 S.Ct. 179, 40 L.Ed. 301 (1895), quoting Plumbly v. Commonwealth, 43 Mass. (2 Met.) 413, 1841 WL 3384 (1841), and People v. Stanley, 4......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT