State v. King, s. 10360

• Decision Date: 27 March 1967
• Docket Number: 10361,Nos. 10360,s. 10360
• Citation: 82 S.D. 514,149 N.W.2d 509
• Parties: STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Willard F. KING, and Larry Lane Lovell, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Page 509

149 N.W.2d 509

82 S.D. 514

STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Willard F. KING, and Larry Lane Lovell, Defendants and Appellants.

Nos. 10360, 10361.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

March 27, 1967.

Robert L. Jones, Sioux Falls, for defendants and appellants.

Frank L. Farrar, Atty. Gen., Walter W. Andre, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, Roger Schiager, State's Atty., Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and respondent.

ROBERTS, Judge.

Appellants, Willard King and Larry Lovell, were tried together upon separate informations charging them with escape. At issue is the validity of the provisions of SDC 1960 Supp. 13.1226 providing:

'Every prisoner confined in the state Penitentiary for a term of less than life, or held as a prisoner there under any means of lawful custody whether sentenced or not, who escapes or attempts to escape therefrom, is punishable by imprisonment in such Penitentiary for a term not exceeding five years. If such prisoner is confined therein under sentence of imprisonment, his sentence on conviction for such escape shall commence at the expiration of the original term of his imprisonment.'

The information in each action charged that defendant while confined in the State Penitentiary 'for a term of years less then for life' did unlawfully and feloniously escape from the custody of the penitentiary officials. After trial defendants were found guilty and sentenced to the State Penitentiary for terms of one year commencing at the expiration of their present terms.

It is contended that the statute in question denies to defendants the equal protection of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and violates the provisions of Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution of this state declaring that no law shall grant to any citizen privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens. The contention is that these constitutional protections are denied by the statute in question because it limits the class of prisoners to those who are sentenced to terms for less than life and fixes a penalty upon them for escaping when no penalty is provided for prisoners sentenced for life.

Equal protection of the law requires that the rights of every person must be governed by the same rule of law under similar circumstances and, in the administration of criminal justice, the imposition of different punishments or different degrees of punishment upon one than is imposed upon all for like offenses is a denial of such right. Moore v. State of Missouri, 159 U.S. 673, 16 S.Ct. 179, 40 L.Ed. 301; Hawker v. State of New York, 170 U.S. 189, 18 S.Ct. 513, 42 L.Ed. 1002; Finley v. People of State of California, 222 U.S. 28, 32 S.Ct. 13, 56 L.Ed. 75; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, 302 U.S. 51, 58 S.Ct. 59, 82 L.Ed. 43. It is clear, however, that the legislature in prescribing and fixing punishment for crime has a wide latitude of discretion in classification of offenders. 16A C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 564. As stated in Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655, '* * * a State is not constrained in the exercise of its police power to ignore experience which marks a class of offenders or a family of offenses for special treatment.' In sustaining a conviction under a statute prescribing a death penalty for commission of assault with intent to kill and a lesser punishment for other convicts the court in Finley v. California, supra, stated, 'It is elementary that the contention is to be tested by considering whether there is a basis for the classification made by the statute. Applying that test, we see no error in the ruling. As said by Mr. Justice...