State v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 01 April 1891
• Citation: 105 Mo. 196,16 S.W. 829
• Parties: STATE v. JACKSON.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

16 S.W. 829

105 Mo. 196

STATE v. JACKSON.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1891.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — DUE PROCESS OF LAW — EX POST FACTO LAWS.

1. An amendment to the constitution of Missouri increasing the number of judges of the supreme court from five to seven, and providing that three judges shall thereafter have exclusive jurisdiction of all criminal cases, is not contrary to the fourteenth amendment Const. U. S., as applied to one convicted of murder, who appealed to the supreme court before such amendment took effect, in that it abridges his privileges as a citizen of the United States, or deprives him of due process and equal protection of the law.

2. An amendment to the constitution of Missouri which enlarges the number of judges of the supreme court from five to seven, and provides that three of the judges shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all criminal cases, is not an ex post facto law, within the meaning of article 1, § 10, Const. U. S., when applied to one convicted of murder who appealed to the supreme court before such amendment took effect.

Affirming 15 S. W. Rep. 333.

In banc. Appeal from circuit court, Gasconade county.

J. C. Kiskaddon and Jas. Borth, for appellant. The Attorney General and Chas. F. Gallenkamp, for the State.

SHERWOOD, C. J.

This cause, which has been here on two former occasions, (95 Mo. 623, 8 S. W. Rep. 749, and 99 Mo. 60, 12 S. W. Rep. 367,) has been transferred to court in banc, in order that certain constitutional questions raised by motion for rehearing in division No. 2 of this court, where the judgment of the lower court was affirmed, may be heard by a full bench. The questions thus presented for decision are these: That at the time the alleged crime was committed, and at the time the appellant took his appeal, the supreme court of this state consisted of five judges, who sat together as one body, and to whom, or a majority of whom, a quorum, were submitted for hearing and determination all appeals, and that to a supreme court so organized and constituted appellant took his appeal; that since appellant took his said appeal an amendment to the constitution of said state has been adopted, whereby the said supreme court, from and after the 1st day of January, 1891, is to consist of seven judges, and is to be divided into two divisions, to be known, respectively, as "Division No. 1" and "Division No. 2," of which divisions the one known as "No. 2," consisting of only three judges, and not of seven, is to have exclusive jurisdiction of all appeals in criminal cases; that appellant is charged with the crime of murder in the first degree, and that his appeal is from the decision and judgment of the circuit court finding him guilty, on a trial for the commission of said crime; that said amendment to the constitution of said state is contrary to section 10, art. 1, of the constitution of the United States of America, in this: that as to this appellant it is an ex post facto law; that said amendment is contrary to the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States of America, in this: that it abridges the privileges and immunities of appellant; that it will deprive appellant of life without due process of law; that it denies to appellant the equal protection of the laws; that the people of the state of Missouri having repealed that part of the constitution providing for a supreme court of five judges, and having, by said amendment, provided a supreme court of two divisions, only one of which has jurisdiction to hear...