State v. Hailey
| Decision Date | 04 February 1974 |
| Citation | 505 S.W.2d 712 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee v. James Edward HAILEY. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
David M. Pack, Atty. Gen., of Tenn., Robert H. Roberts, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas H. Shriver, Dist. Atty. Gen., E. E. Edwards, III, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for appellant.
J. William Rutherford, Nashville, for appellee.
The State has perfected its appeal in the nature of a writ of error from the judgment of the Criminal Court of Davidson County, Part Two, by which that court had held unconstitutional and void Chapter 192 of the Public Acts of 1973. Because the constitutionality of the statute is the sole and single question for determination the appeal is to the Supreme Court.
The grand jury indicted James Edward Hailey for murder in the first degree in the following language:
'The Grand Jurors for the State of Tennessee, duly elected, impaneled, sworn, and charged, to inquire for the body of the County of Davidson and State aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, present: That James Edward Hailey of said County, heretofore, to wit, on the _ _ day of May, 1973 with force and arms, in the County aforesaid, unlawfully, and prior to the return of this indictment, feloniously, willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and maliciously, or in the perpetration of or while attempting robbery did make an assault with a deadly weapon upon the body of one James R. Parks, and him the said James R. Parks, he the said James Edward Hailey, then and there did unlawfully, feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, and of his malice aforethought, or in the perpetration of or while attempting robbery, kill and murder, in violation of Chapter 192 of the Public Acts of 1973, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.'
Hailey entered a plea of not guilty to the indictment but on motion was allowed to withdraw his plea and to file a plea in abatement by which he contended that (1) Chapter 192 of the Public Acts of 1973, providing for the death penalty for murder is unconstitutional under the standards of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), and (2) that Chapter 192 'is unconstitutional in that it fails to meet the requirement of Article II, Section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution in that it 'embraces more than one subject' and fails to state 'the subject of the law repealed, revised or amended."
The Criminal Court in its order expressed the opinion, with which we agree, that the question of the death penalty presented by Furman v. Georgia, supra, was premature since the defendant had not been found guilty and sentenced to death. It then determined that Chapter 192 of the Public Acts of 1973, is invalid under the provisions of Article II, Section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution and sustained the plea in abatement. The correctness of this action is the only question presented by the appeal.
The title or caption of Chapter 192 of the Public Acts of 1973 (originally House Bill 553) is as follows:
'AN ACT to amend Title 39 of the Tennessee Code Annotated to prescribe the death penalty for murder in the first degree and for other related purposes.'
Section 1 of Chapter 192 provides, among other things, that murder that theretofore had been murder in the second degree thenceforth would be murder in the first degree if the victim should be a fellow prison inmate, or a peace officer, fireman or judge acting in the course of his employment, or a popularly elected public official.
The section also provides that when one is in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 52--1432(a)(1)(A), a section of the Drug Control Act, and the recipient of the controlled substance dies as the result of such controlled substance, the violator shall be guilty of murder in the first degree.
Section 2 of the Act provides that 'Upon conviction or adjudication of guilt of a defendant of murder in the first degree the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant shall be sentenced to death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for some period over 25 years.' The section requires the jury after hearing evidence to render a sentence based on their finding of aggravating circumstances, or mitigating circumstances which are defined in the language of the section. It is further provided that there shall be the automatic review by the Supreme Court of judgments of conviction and sentences of death.
Section 5 provides a new and different punishment for the crime of rape.
Article II, Section 17 of the Constitution of Tennessee is, as follows:
The controlling issue here is whether Chapter 192 of the Public Acts of 1973 'embraces more than one subject, that subject to be expressed in the title.' We are of opinion that the act is defective because the body embraces more than one subject and because the title or caption does not express all the subject matter set forth in the body. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Middlebrooks
...550 S.W.2d 643 (Tenn.1977), cert. denied sub nom. Morgan v. Tennessee, 434 U.S. 905, 98 S.Ct. 303, 54 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977); State v. Hailey, 505 S.W.2d 712 (Tenn.1974). The General Assembly's response to these court actions was to enact new statutes addressing the concerns expressed by the Fu......
-
State v. Black
...decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), and this Court's decisions in State v. Hailey, 505 S.W.2d 712, 714-715 (Tenn.1974), and Collins v. State, 550 S.W.2d 643, 646-647 (Tenn.1977), rendered unconstitutional Tennessee's statutes setting death as t......
-
State v. Bland
...because its provisions embraced more than one subject and not all of the subject matter was set forth in the caption. State v. Hailey, 505 S.W.2d 712 (Tenn.1974). As a result, the General Assembly that same year amended the definition of first degree murder and provided a mandatory death pe......
-
Farris v. State
...the Legislature and the Public be given notice of legislative proposals and to prevent surprise and fraud in enactments. State v. Hailey, 505 S.W.2d 712 (Tenn.1974). Before discussing the precedents which in our view compel the conclusion that this Act is broader than its caption, it is nec......