People v. Baum, 144.
| Citation | 251 Mich. 187,231 N.W. 95 |
| Decision Date | 02 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 144.,144. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BAUM. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Berrien County; Charles E. White, Judge.
Eva Baum was convicted of violation of liquor law, and she brings error.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Argued before the Entire Bench. George H. Bookwalter, of Benton Harbor, for appellant.
Wilber M. Brucker, Atty. Gen., Harold J. Waples, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Wilbur M. Cunningham, Pros. Atty., of Benton Harbor, for the People.
Defendant was convicted of a violation of the liquor law, and sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and $500 costs. In addition, defendant ‘must leave the state of Michigan within 30 days and not return for period of probation,’ which was fixed at five years. The sole question presented is the validity of this sentence, it being claimed by defendant it violates chapter 11 of Act No. 175, Public Acts 1927, article 2, §§ 9, 15, and 16, of the Constitution of Michigan, and section 1 of Amendment 14 of the Constitution of the United States.
Banishment and deportation were not cruel and unusual punishments at common law. On the contrary, banishment and deportation to criminal colonies was a common method of punishment in England. Deportation of the nationals of foreign countries is a popular method of punishing undesirable aliens who commit crimes against the United States. The American states are not supreme, independent, sovereign states in relation to those things delegated by the people to the federal government, though the states are all in the Union on the basis of equality of political rights. Independent national states have a right to protect their political institutions, their people, and their independent existence by exclding legally and forcibly undesirable foreigners. This is the basis of the laws of the United States restricting immigration. To permit one state to dump its convict criminals into another would entitle the state believing itself injured thereby to exercise its police and military power, in the interest of its own peace, safety, and welfare, to repel such an invasion. It would tend to incite dissension, provoke retaliation, and disturb that fundamental equality of political rights among the several states which is the basis of the Union itself. Such a method of punishment is not authorized by statute, and is impliedly prohibited by public policy.
In State v. Baker, 58 S. C. 111, 36 S. E. 501, 502, defendant was tried and convicted of grand larceny and sentenced to be confined in the state penitentiary for seven years. The sentence then continued:
In reversing the case for the sentence which the court held erroneous, it is said:
‘We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Pike
...v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 98 S.Ct. 2531, 57 L.Ed.2d 475 (1978). Numerous courts have embraced the rationale of People v. Baum, 251 Mich. 187, 189, 231 N.W. 95 (1930), in which the Supreme Court of Michigan reasoned that "permit[ting] one State to dump its convict criminals into another .......
-
Moore v. Buchko
...on the excessive sentence statute: illegal--People v. Ancksornby (1925), 231 Mich. 271, 203 N.W. 864; erroneous--People v. Baum (1930), 251 Mich. 187, 231 N.W. 95; improper--People v. Hoaglin (1933), 262 Mich. 162, 247 N.W. 141; irregular--People v. Harrison (1916), 194 Mich. 363, 160 N.W. ......
-
People v. Coles
...385 Mich. 244, 247-248, 188 N.W.2d 559 (1971).9 Moore v. Parole Board, 379 Mich. 624, 154 N.W.2d 437 (1967).10 People v. Baum, 251 Mich. 187, 231 N.W. 95 (1930).11 People v. Hoaglin, 262 Mich. 162, 247 N.W. 141 (1933); People v. Ancksornby, 231 Mich. 271, 203 N.W. 864 (1925).12 People v. Co......
-
People v. Gauntlett
...A condition of probation requiring defendant to leave the state during probation was contrary to public policy. People v. Baum, 251 Mich. 187, 231 N.W. 95 (1930). A condition requiring defendant to move from his neighborhood was struck down as without authority of law in People v. Smith, 25......
-
Horizontal federalism in an age of criminal justice interconnectedness.
...see Wayne A. Logan, Crime, Criminals and Competitive Crime Control, 104 MICH. L. REV. (forthcoming 2006). (31) See, e.g., People v. Baum, 231 N.W. 95, 96 (Mich. 1930) (concluding that banishment "tend[s] to incite dissension, provoke retaliation, and disturb that fundamental equality of pol......
-
Banishment in Georgia: a New Approach to Domestic Violence
...74 S.E.2d 922, 924 (N.C. 1953) ("It is not sound public policy to make other states a dumping ground for our criminals."); People v. Baum, 231 N.W. 95, 96 (Mich. 1930). 8. Rick Hirsch, City Counterattacks for Convict Dumping, Miami Herald, May 10, 1985, at 1C, available at 1985 WLNR 283387.......
-
Anti-prostitution zones: justifications for abolition.
...Use and a proposal for Its Abolition Under the First Amendment, 24 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 455, 466 n.77 (1998). (85) 251 Mich. 187 (Mich. (86) 312 F.2d 73 (9th Cir. 1962). (87) See Snider, supra note 84, at 468. (88) Id. at 467. (89) Compare In Re White, 97 Cal. App. 3d......