State v. Beddo

Decision Date28 November 1900
CourtUtah Supreme Court
PartiesTHE STATE OF UTAH, RESPONDENT, v. JAMES W. BEDDO, APPELLANT

Rehearing denied December 10, 1900.

Appeal from the Fourth District Court Uintah County. Hon. J. E Booth, Judge.

Defendant was prosecuted and convicted of the crime of rape under an information filed by the District Attorney of the Fourth District. From a judgment and sentence entered upon conviction defendant appealed, challenging the constitutionality of Chap. 56, S. L. 1899.

Reversed and remanded.

W. H Frye, Esq. and E. A. Walton, Esq., for appellant.

Hon. A. C. Bishop, Atty. General and Wm. A. Lee, Deputy Atty. General, for respondent.

BARTCH, C. J. MINER, J. and BASKIN, J., concur.

OPINION

BARTCH, C. J.

The defendant herein was prosecuted for and convicted of the crime of rape, committed upon the person of a little girl twelve years of age. Upon having been sentenced to undergo imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of five years, he appealed to this court.

The record shows that the information, under which the prosecution was conducted, was filed by the district attorney under c. 56 Sess. Laws, 1899, p. 77, and not by the county attorney, as provided in Sec. 4692, R. S. 1898.

It is insisted, on behalf of the prisoner, that such portions of c. 56 as are claimed by the prosecution to authorize district attorneys to file informations in criminal cases are void, as being in conflict with Art. 1, Sec. 24, and Art. 6, Secs. 22 and 23 of the State Constitution, and that, therefore, the information having been filed, by such district attorney, instead of the county attorney, the court acquired no jurisdiction to try the case.

The decisive question herein, it seems, arises under Sec. 22, Art. 6 Const., which so far as important here, provides that "no law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only; but the act as revised, shall be re-enacted and published at length." These provisions are clearly restrictive and mandatory. Under the first clause the legislature is deprived of all power to revise or amend any law by merely referring to its title. To make a valid revision of or amendment to any law, the act as revised, or section as amended, must be re-enacted and published at length as provided in the latter clause quoted. This is a wise provision of the constitution, and was intended to avoid that confusion which would inevitably follow, if an act or section could be revised or amended by mere reference to the title, or section, or word, or line, as to which the change was intended to be made; for after repeated amendments so made the statute law would be rendered so ambiguous and imperfect, and in the course of time, would require the examination of so many enactments to ascertain what statutes were in force, as to render any satisfactory determination or conclusion exceedingly difficult if not impossible.

Such revisions and amendments by mere reference to title, however, not only render the statute law difficult of construction, but they are calculated to confuse and mislead the public, and are therefore inimical to business transactions and the interests of the people. So, they have a tendency to encourage improvident legislation, by misleading the average legislator, who, because of numerous additions, insertions or substitutions, made with mere reference to the old statute or section, is unable to ascertain what the exact state of the law is, and yet it is of the highest importance that every member of the legislature shall have a correct understanding of what the existing law is before he attempts to revise or amend it. This fact was doubtless recognized by the framers of the constitution who evidently intended the provisions, above quoted, as a remedy for the evils referred to. Therefore, when an act or a section is revised or amended, the same must be complete within itself, so that when published as revised or amended it will contain all the law upon the subject embraced in the act or section, and any matter, contained in the old statute or section, which is not contained in the new ceases to have the force of law, except as to past transactions. Suth., Stat. Const. Sec. 131; Blackmore v. Dolan, 50 Ind. 194; Dodd v. The State, 18 Ind. 56.

If then c. 56, Laws 1899, were in no respect violative of any constitutional provision, it would contain all the law upon the subject...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Noble v. Bragaw
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1906
    ...Bridge Co. v. Olmstead, 41 Ala. 9; Miller v. Berry, 101 Ala. 531, 14 So. 655; Haring v. State, 51 N.J.L. 386, 17 A. 1079; State v. Beddo, 22 Utah 432, 63 P. 96 (followed several subsequent cases); Judson v. Bessemer, 87 Ala. 240, 6 So. 267, 4 L. R. A. 742; Beard v. Wilson, 52 Ark. 290, 12 S......
  • Hart v. Backstrom
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1927
    ...of existing laws, but by an examination and comparison of its provisions with prior laws which are left in force." In State v. Beddo, 22 Utah 432, 63 P. 96, supreme court of Utah, in discussing a similar provision of the Constitution of that state upon statutes involved in that decision, sa......
  • Marioneaux v. Cutler
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • August 1, 1907
    ... ... Application of Thomas Marioneaux for a writ of mandate ... against John C. Cutler, Governor, and others, constituting ... the state board of examiners, to compel defendants to allow ... petitioner's claim as a district judge for mileage ... WRIT ... Thomas ... without mentioning the former act in the title of the latter ... In support of this contention State v. Beddo , 22 ... Utah 432, 63 P. 96, is cited. We have already had occasion to ... point out that the decision in the Beddo Case , if ... construed as ... ...
  • State v. Price
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • November 3, 1923
    ...crime by information and not signed by the person designated by law are void for want of jurisdiction in the trial court. (State v. Beddo, 22 Utah 432, 63 P. 96; State Morrey, 23 Utah 273, 64 P. 764; State v. Buker, 23 Utah 276, 64 P. 1118; Connors v. Pratt, 38 Utah 258, 112 P. 399; 14 C. J......
  • 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