State v. Constantino
| Decision Date | 26 January 1904 |
| Citation | 76 Vt. 192,56 A. 1101 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. CONSTANTINO. |
Exceptions from Caledonia County Court; Stafford, Judge.
G. Constantino was charged with keeping intoxicating liquor for sale without a license. His demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and he brings exceptions. Affirmed.
Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, START, WATSON, STAFFORD, and HASELTON, JJ.
M. G. Morse, State's Arty., for the State. J. P. Lamson and Taylor & Dutton, for respondent.
This is a complaint founded on section 68, No. 90, p. 107, Acts 1902, for furnishing, selling, and exposing for sale intoxicating liquor without authority, and without having a license therefor in force, and for exposing and keeping for sale intoxicating liquor without authority, and without having a license therefor in force. The sanction of the section is a fine of not less than $300, or imprisonment for not less than 3 nor more than 12 months, or both. The respondent demurs, and objects that said section is unconstitutional, for that the Legislature attempts therein to exercise judicial power, and for that it provides for a fine not proportioned to the offense, fixes no maximum fine, prescribes an excessive minimum fine, and thereby virtually compels the court to require excessive bail.
The claim that it is an attempt on the part of the Legislature to exercise judicial power is based upon the idea that it is for the courts, under the Constitution, to proportion fines to the offenses, and consequently that the Legislature cannot fix a definite and certain sum as a fine, leaving no discretion in the courts to reduce that sum to meet the circumstances of the concrete case. Counsel go so far as to claim that the minimum fine must in all cases be fixed by the Legislature at a nominal sum, otherwise the judicial power is trenched upon. But the constitutional provision that fines shall be proportioned to the offenses is addressed to the Legislature as well as to the courts. The Legislature has the right to prescribe fines, and especially for the punishment of offenses that it creates, and to its judgment and discretion in this behalf a wide latitude must necessarily be accorded. Fines are to be fixed with reference to the object they are designed to accomplish. The decree of criminality of the offense, the illegality or impolicy of the act intended to be punished or prevented, are elements that must be considered. The peace of the state and the welfare of the community often require the Legislature to create new offenses, and to prescribe fines for their punishment, and to alter fines already prescribed. In performing this duty the Legislature has no guide but its judgment and discretion and the wisdom of experience, and the courts cannot properly question its action unless the minimum fine is so large as to be clearly out of all just proportion to the offense. 13 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d Ed.) 60; Southern Express Co. v. Com., 92 Va. 59, 22 S. E. 809, 41 L. R. A. 436; State v. Rodman, 58 Minn. 393. 402, 59 N. W. 1098; Commonwealth v. Murphy. 165 Mass. 66, 42 N. E. 504, 30 L. R. A. 734,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nelson
... ... see no reason to regard such prescription as mandatory ... Frese v. Florida, 23 Fla. 267, 270, 2 So. 1; In ... re Yell, 107 Mich. 228, 230, 65 N.W. 97; Southern ... Express Co. v. Com. ex rel. Walker, 92 Va. 59, 66, 22 ... S.E. 809,41 L.R.A. 436; 16 C.J. 1359; State v ... Constantino, 76 Vt. 192, 196, 56 A. 1101. Although the ... benefit of § 13 doubtless extends to fines specifically fixed ... by the Legislature (State v. Griffith, 83 Conn. 1, ... 4, 74 A. 1068; Griffith v. State of Connecticut, 218 ... U.S. 563, 31 S.Ct. 132, 54 L.Ed. 1151; [126 Conn. 427] ... ...
-
State v. Saari, s. 86-511
...to create new offenses and to prescribe fines for their punishment, and to alter fines already prescribed." State v. Constantino, 76 Vt. 192, 196, 56 A. 1101, 1101 (1904). 3 The severity of the sentence for any given crime is meant to be an amalgam of "public attitudes ... history and prece......
-
State v. Certain Contraceptive Materials
...v. State, 68 Tex. Crim. Rep. 363, 153 S.W. 134; Martin, Wise & Fitzhugh v. Johnson, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 628, 33 S.W. 306; State v. Constantino, 76 Vt. 192, 56 A. 1101; Southern Express Company v. Commonwealth, 92 Va. 22 S.E. 809.) 48. In England the statutes seldom fixed the amount of a fine ......
-
State v. Bacon
...it is " 'clearly out of all just proportion to the offense.' " Venman, 151 Vt. at 572, 564 A.2d at 581 (quoting State v. Constantino, 76 Vt. 192, 196, 56 A. 1101, 1101 (1904)). Given the seriousness of the offense for which defendant was convicted, no sentence of imprisonment could be dispr......