Smyth v. Godwin
| Citation | 188 Va. 753 |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1949 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 3473. |
| Parties | W. FRANK SMYTH, JR., SUPERINTENDENT OF THE VIRGINIA STATE PENITENTIARY v. CHARLES M. GODWIN. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
1. HABEAS CORPUS — Commonwealth Real Party in Interest Where Respondent Is Its Agent — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the trial court ordered the release of petitioner from respondent's custody. To review its action a writ of error was allowed respondent. Section 88 of the Constitution of Virginia provides: "No appeal shall be allowed to the Commonwealth in a case involving the life or liberty of a person, except that an appeal by the Commonwealth may be allowed in any case involving the violation of a law relating to the State revenue." Petitioner ws serving a sentence for rape and contended that while the Commonwealth was not technically a party to a habeas corpus proceeding it was so in substance, so that the allowance of the writ of error or appeal was in violation of the Constitution. In reply it was insisted that the writ was directed to respondent as required by section 5849 of the Code of 1942 (Michie) "as the individual who was detaining the then petitioner", and that the writ of error was "allowed to" respondent and not to the Commonwealth.
Held: There was no merit in the latter contention. While it was true that the Commonwealth was not a named party in the habeas corpus proceeding, it was vitally interested in it. The purpose of the proceeding was to test the validity of the detention of petitioner by an agent of the State government in the discharge of his official duty, and thus was a proceeding against the Commonwealth, which was the real party in interest.
2. HABEAS CORPUS — Review — Respondent Not Precluded from Securing Writ of Error by Section 88 of Virginia Constitution — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the trial court ordered the release of petitioner from respondent's custody. To review its action a writ of error was allowed respondent. Section 88 of the Constitution of Virginia provides: "No appeal shall be allowed to the Commonwealth in a case involving the life or liberty of a person, except that an appeal by the Commonwealth may be allowed in any case involving the violation of a law relating to the State revenue." Petitioner was serving a sentence for rape and contended that a habeas corpus proceeding involved his liberty, so that the allowance of the writ of error or appeal was in violation of the Constitution.
Held: The provision of section 88 of the Constitution of Virginia was designed to preclude the allowance of an appeal or writ of error to the Commonwealth in a criminal prosecution "involving the life or liberty of a person", other than a prosecution for the "violation of a law relating to the State revenue", and was not intended to apply to a habeas corpus or other civil proceeding. While the language used in the section did not in terms limit the denial of an appeal to the Commonwealth in a criminal prosecution, such was its purpose.
3. HABEAS CORPUS — Definition and Nature — A Civil Proceeding. — Habeas corpus is a civil and not a criminal proceeding. It is designed to challenge the civil right of the validity of the petitioner's detention. It is in no sense a continuation of the criminal prosecution, but a new suit brought by petitioner to enforce a civil right, which he claims, as against those who are holding him in custody under the criminal process.
4. HABEAS CORPUS — Definition and Nature — Proceeding Does Not Involve "Life and Liberty" within Meaning of Section 88 of Virginia Constitution — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the trial court ordered the release of petitioner from respondent's custody. To review its action a writ of error was allowed respondent. Section 88 of the Constitution of Virginia provides: "No appeal shall be allowed to the Commonwealth in a case involving the life or liberty of a person, except that an appeal by the Commonwealth may be allowed in any case involving the violation of a law relating to the State revenue." Petitioner was serving a sentence for rape and contended that a habeas corpus proceeding involved his liberty, so that the allowance of the writ of error or repeal was in violation of the Constitution.
Held: That it was true in a sense that the instant proceeding involved the "liberty" of petitioner, but the word "liberty" as used in section 88 of the Constitution of Virginia must be interpreted in the light of its context. Ordinarily, "a case involving the life or liberty of a person" connoted a criminal prosecution, in which the conviction of the accused might result in a sentence of death or imprisonment, that is, a judgment directly depriving him of his life or liberty. Certainly a case involving the "life" of a person denoted a criminal prosecution, but an adverse judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding, brought to test the validity of a sentence of death under which a prisoner was held did not deprive him of his life. It involved the validity of the judgment which might result in his death, but the criminal prosecution was the proceeding which directly involved his life. Since the words "life" and "liberty" were used in section 88 co-ordinately, no broader meaning should be attributed to "liberty" than to "life".
5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Construction — Section 88 of Virginia Constitution. — In the Constitution of Virginia of 1902, section 8 of the Bill of Rights was amended to provide that no person should be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense "except that an appeal may be allowed to the Commonwealth in all cases for the violation of a law relating to the State revenue". The purpose of this amendment, now carried in section 88 of the Constitution by the amendment of 1928, was not to limit the right of appeal by the Commonwealth, but to preserve to it a right which otherwise would have been lost.
6. HABEAS CORPUS — Review — Petitioner Not Put Twice in Jeopardy by Writ of Error Allowed Respondent — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the trial court ordered the release of petitioner from respondent's custody. To review its action a writ of error was allowed respondent. Section 88 of the Constitution of Virginia provides: "No appeal shall be allowed to the Commonwealth in a case involving the life or liberty of a person, except that an appeal by the Commonwealth may be allowed in any case involving the violation of a law relating to the State revenue." Petitioner was serving a sentence for rape and contended that a habeas corpus proceeding involved his liberty, so that the allowance of the writ of error or appeal was in violation of the Constitution.
Held: The provision prohibiting the allowance of an appeal to the Commonwealth in a case "involving the life or liberty of a person" was inserted in the Constitution of Virginia to insure that in a criminal prosecution, where a man's guilt or innocence of the charge made against him was at issue, he might not "be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense". It was first written into section 8 of the Bill of Rights dealing with criminal prosecutions, and was later carried into section 88 defining the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Appeals, but its purpose in both sections was the same. No question of former jeopardy was involved in the instant proceeding. The Commonwealth was not appealing from a judgment in the criminal prosecution of petitioner, and a reversal of the judgment directing his discharge would in no way subject him to being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.
7. HABEAS CORPUS — Review — Respondent Not precluded from Securing Writ of Error under Legislative Construction of Virginia Constitution — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the trial court ordered the release of petitioner from respondent's custody. To review its action a writ of error was allowed respondent. Section 88 of the Constitution of Virginia provides: "No appeal shall be allowed to the Commonwealth in a case involving the life or liberty of a person, except that an appeal by the Commonwealth may be allowed in any case involving the violation of a law relating to the State revenue." Petitioner was serving a sentence for rape and contended that a habeas corpus proceeding involved his liberty, so that the allowance of the writ of error or appeal was in violation of the Constitution. Section 6336 of the Code of 1942 (Michie) provides for the filing of a petition for an appeal or writ of error by "any person who thinks himself aggrieved by a final judgment, decree or order in any civil case, * * *". Section 5859 of the Code of 1942 (Michie), relating to the writ of habeas corpus, provides that where a prisoner is ordered to be discharged, "and the execution of the judgment is suspended for the purpose of applying for a writ of error, the court or judge making such suspending order, may, in its or his discretion, admit the prisoner to bail until the expiration of the time allowed for applying for the writ of error, or, in case the writ of error be allowed, until the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals is duly certified".
Held: Sections 6336 and 5859 of the Code of 1942 (Michie) showed that the General Assembly of Virginia acquiesced in the view that section 88 of the Constitution does not prohibit the allowance of an appeal to the Commonwealth in a habeas corpus proceeding. The respondent was a "person" who was "aggrieved" by the order or judgment complained of as provided in section 6336, and section 5859 clearly contemplated that the Commonwealth, or its proper agent, might apply for a writ of error to a judgment directing the discharge of a prisoner.
8. APPEAL AND ERROR — Assignment of Error — Necessity and General Consideration — ...
To continue reading
Request your trial