Roberts v. State
| Decision Date | 03 October 1899 |
| Citation | 160 N.Y. 217,54 N.E. 678 |
| Parties | ROBERTS v. STATE. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Third department.
Claim by John Roberts against the state of New York for illegal conviction and imprisonment, in pursuance of Laws 1895, c. 342. From a judgment of the appellate division reversing a judgment of the court of claims in favor of claimant (51 N. Y. Supp. 691), he appeals. Affirmed.
The amount of the claim as presented was $138,976.54. Upon the 15th day of April, 1895, which was more than 18 years after his conviction, and nearly 17 years after his pardon, his rights as a citizen were restored to him by the governor of the state. Two days later the legislature passed a statute as follows: follows:
‘The people of the state of New York, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:
In May, 1895, the appellant presented a claim to the board of claims for the amount already mentioned, which was composed of items for loss of business, loss of property, counsel fees, and other expenses, $33,538.10 for interest, and for damages to reputation, etc., $75,000.
Joseph P. McDonough, for appellant.
John C. Davies and John H. Coyne, for the State.
MARTIN, J. (after stating the facts).
It is manifest that the appellant's pardon and restoration to the rights of citizenship had no retroactive effect upon the judgment of conviction, which remains unreversed and has not been set aside. We think the effect of a pardon is to relieve the offender of all unenforced penalties annexed to the conviction, but what the party convicted has already endured or paid the pardon does not restore. When it takes effect it puts an end to any further infliction of punishment, but has no operation upon the portion of the sentence already executed. A pardon proceeds, not upon the theory of innocence, but implies guilt. If there was no guilt, theoretically at least, there would be no basis for pardon. It is granted, not as a matter of right, but of grace. In the language of another: The pardon in this case shows upon its face that it was granted as an act of mercy, and not as one of justice. It was upon the representation that the appellant was a fit subject for mercy that it was obtained, and not upon the ground that the judgment was unjust or invalid. If the judgment was erroneous, the remedy was by appeal or by application to set it aside, and not by pardon. That question was for the judicial branch of the state government to determine, and not for the legislative or executive department. Upon this branch of the case we concur in the conclusion reached by the learned appellate division, which has so carefully considered the question that no further discussion seems necessary.
Assuming, as we must, that the appellant's pardon and restoration to citizenship affected the judgment of conviction only to relieve him from future or further punishment, it follows that the imprisonment for which he seeks to recover damages was in all respects proper. The judgment of conviction was introduced in evidence before the court of claims, so that the record of the trial in this action contains a judgment adjudging the appellant guilty of the crime with which he was charged, and for which he was convicted and imprisoned. Thus, it was conclusively established that he was guilty of the offense charged, and that his punishment was legal. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that he was not entitled to recover, unless that right is expressly conferred by the statute of 1895, or is to be clearly and necessarily implied from its provisions. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Palmer
...the fact of an acquittal. In re Johnston, 3 Cal.2d 32, 43 P.2d 541 (1935). It may not reverse a judgment. Roberts v. The State, 160 N.Y. 217, 54 N.E. 678 (1899). It may not direct the disposition of a case in which jurisdiction has attached. State v. Costen, 141 Tenn. 539, 213 S.W. 910 (191......
-
Slewett & Farber v. Board of Assessors
...L.Ed. 519; Matter of Greene, 166 N.Y. 485, 60 N.E. 183; supra; Roberts v. State of New York, 30 App.Div. 106, 51 N.Y.S. 691, affd. 160 N.Y. 217, 54 N.E. 678; Griffin's Exc'r v. Cunningham, 61 Va. 31; Arnold v. Kelly, 5 W.Va. 446; Taylor & Co. v. Place, 4 R.I. 324; Lewis v. Webb, 3 Me. 326; ......
-
Sandel v. State
...a liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense. Roberts v. State, 160 N. Y. 217, 54 N. E. 678. Immunity from an action is one thing. Immunity from liability for the torts of its officers and agents is another. Immunity f......
-
People v. Blocker
...guilt, ... there would no basis for pardon.' " ( Lyons v. Goldstein (1943) 290 N.Y. 19, 47 N.E.2d 425, 430, quoting Roberts v. State (1899) 160 N.Y. 217, 54 N.E. 678, 679.) Guilt as the predicate for pardon is virtually a judicial truism, one commanding wide acceptance. (E.g., People v. Big......
-
Protecting the innocent in New York: moving beyond changing only their names.
...life, and thus was entitled to minimal procedural due process protections, in state executive clemency decisions). (477) Roberts v. State, 54 N.E. 678, 679 (N.Y. 1899) ("We think the effect of a pardon is to relieve the offender of all unenforced penalties annexed to the conviction, but wha......