State v. Brown
Decision Date | 26 January 1938 |
Docket Number | 35410 |
Citation | 112 S.W.2d 568,342 Mo. 53 |
Parties | The State v. John Brown, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Reported at 342 Mo. 53 at 55.
Original Opinion of January 26, 1938, Reported at 342 Mo. 53.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., Olliver W. Nolen, Asst. Atty. Gen and Arthur O'Keefe, of Jefferson City, for the State.
On Motion To Modify Opinion.
The Attorney General has filed a motion to modify the above opinion and in lieu of affirming the judgment of the trial court, which ordered that the death sentence be carried into execution by hanging, as was provided by law at the time of the sentence of the trial court, enter an order adjudging that the defendant be executed by the administration of lethal gas, as provided by an act of the Legislature of 1937. [See Laws 1937, pages 221 to 223.] Notice of the motion to modify has been served upon the attorney of record for the appellant.
It will be noted that the new act, Sections 3719, 3721 to 3725 inclusive, Article XIII, Chapter 29, Revised Statutes 1929, were repealed and seven new sections were enacted in lieu thereof. This new act repealed outright, without a saving clause, the law providing for the infliction of the death penalty by hanging. The new act substituted a new method: That death should be inflicted by the administration of lethal gas; and that such execution be carried out within the walls of the state penitentiary, under the supervision of the warden. [See Sec. 3723, Laws 1937, p. 223.]
This question has been before the courts of some of our sister states, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States. In several cases it was held that under the laws of those states a change in the method of carrying out a death sentence would not affect cases then pending. For example: The State of Connecticut, by its laws, changed the method of inflicting the death penalty by hanging to electrocution. In Simborski v. Wheeler, 183 A. 688, the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a statute of that State, providing:
"The repeal of any statute defining or prescribing the punishment for any crime shall not affect any pending prosecution or any existing liability to prosecution and punishment therefor, unless expressly provided in the repealing statute that such repeal shall have that effect," acted as a saving clause, and therefore a defendant, who had been sentenced to hang before the law went into effect, could not be executed by the new method. The same ruling will be found in Washington v. Dowling, 109 So. 588, 92 Fla. 601. Neither of these cases holds, however, that the change in the law violated any substantial rights of the defendant. The decisions were based entirely upon the proposition that the law contemplated that the cases then pending should not be affected by the new act.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina in State v. Malloy, 95 S.C. 441, 78 S.E. 995, an exhaustive opinion, held that a change in the manner of inflicting the death penalty did not violate any rights of the defendant. The court said:
The Supreme Court of the United States in Malloy v. South Carolina, 237 U.S. 180, 59 L.Ed. 905, 35 S.Ct. 507, approved the ruling of the Supreme Court of that state. The court in the course of the opinion said:
In Alberty v. State, 10 Okla.Crim. 616, 140 P. 1025, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma had the following to say, as to such a change in the law:
(Italics ours.)
See also Shipp v. State, 130 Tenn. 491, 492, 172 S.W 317, l. c. 318. In the State of Arizona a constitutional amendment substituted lethal gas for execution of the death penalty in lieu of hanging. [See Hernandez v. State, 43 Ariz. 424, 429, 32 P.2d 18, l. c. 24, 25.] In Nevada a like substitution was made by the Legislature. [See State v. Gee Jon, 46 Nev. 418, 211 P. 678, 217 P. 587, 30 A. L. R. 1443.]...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Mata
...supra note 115; Poland v. Stewart, 117 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.1997); State v. Jones, 200 La. 808, 9 So.2d 42 (1942); State v. Brown, 342 Mo. 53, 112 S.W.2d 568 (1937); State v. Fitzpatrick, 211 Mont. 341, 684 P.2d 1112 (1984); Alberty v. State, 10 Okla.Crim. 616, 140 P. 1025 (1914); Ex parte Gr......
-
Sims v. State
...ex rel. Pierre v. Jones, 200 La. 808, 9 So.2d 42 (1942) (statutory enactment switching from hanging to electrocution); State v. Brown, 342 Mo. 53, 112 S.W.2d 568 (1937) (statutory amendment switching from hanging to lethal gas); Woo Dak San v. State, 36 N.M. 53, 7 P.2d 940 (1931) (switching......
-
State v. Williamson
... ... strong, and satisfactory; if there is any doubt on this ... point, the confession must be excluded." [16 C. J ... 722-723.] This rule has been uniformly followed in this ... State. [See State v. Jones, 54 Mo. 478; State v ... Brown, 73 Mo. 631; State v. Ellis, 294 Mo. 269, ... 242 S.W. 952; State v. Condit, 307 Mo. 393, 270 S.W ... 286; State v. Nagle, 326 Mo. 661, 32 S.W.2d 596.] ... But, on ... the other hand, if no connection appears between the threats ... or promises that made the original ... ...
-
State v. Brown
...568 342 Mo. 53 The State v. John Brown, Appellant No. 35410Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 26, 1938 Rehearing Granted, Reported at 342 Mo. 53 at 55. from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Marion D. Waltner, Judge. Remanded (with directions.) Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, Olliver W. Nolen, As......