State v. Lubee
| Decision Date | 27 December 1899 |
| Citation | 45 A. 520,93 Me. 418 |
| Parties | STATE v. LUBEE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Exceptions from superior court, Cumberland county.
James Lubee was convicted of the violation of an act relating to short lobsters, and excepts. Exceptions overruled.
This was an appeal to the superior court, Cumberland county, from the Portland municipal court, upon a complaint against the defendant under the provisions of section 39 of chapter 285 of the Public Laws of 1897, for having in his possession 36 lobsters less than 10 1/2 inches in length.
The government introduced evidence that the defendant on the 14th day of July, 1898, had in his possession 36 lobsters, each of which lobsters was less than 10 1/2 inches in length, measured as provided by said law,— said lobsters being at said time in a lobster trap owned and controlled by the defendant, the ends of which were tied up in such a manner that said lobsters could not escape,—and also that the defendant then stated that the lobsters were intended to be used by him for bait.
The evidence also showed that the value of the lobsters was from one to two cents apiece.
The defendant did not take the stand, and did not offer any evidence whatever.
The defendant's counsel requested the court to rule that the law under which said complaint was instituted was unconstitutional, as it imposed an excessive fine. The court declined so to rule, and instructed the jury that the law was constitutional. The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
To this ruling and refusal to rule the defendant excepted.
Argued before EMERY, HASKELL, WISWELL, STROUT, SAVAGE, and FOGLER, JJ.
Geo. Libby, Co. Atty., for the State.
Benj. Thompson, for defendant.
The respondent was tried in the superior court for Cumberland county, on appeal from the municipal court of the city of Portland, upon a complaint charging him with having in his possession 36 lobsters, each less than 10 1/2 inches in length. The statute upon which the complaint is based (section 39, c. 285, Pub. Laws 1897) provides that it is unlawful to possess, for any purpose, any lobsters less than 10 1/2 inches in length, under a penalty of five dollars for each lobster so possessed. The respondent's counsel requested the court to rule that the law under which the complaint was instituted was unconstitutional and void, as it imposed an excessive fine. The court declined to so rule, and instructed the jury that the law was constitutional; and, the jury having returned a verdict of guilty, the respondent excepts ta such ruling and refusal to rule.
The question presented by the exceptions is whether or not the fine provided by the act above referred to is "excessive," and repugnant to section 9 of article 1 of the constitution of this state, which prohibits the imposition of "excessive fines."
It is contended by the respondent's counsel that as the value of the lobsters less than the required length, found in the respondent's possession, was, as appears by the testimony, only one or two cents each, a penalty of five dollars for each lobster is not proportional to the offense, but is excessive, and therefore repugnant to the constitutional provision above referred to.
Every presumption and intendment is in favor of the constitutionality of an act of legislature. Courts are not justified in pronouncing a legislative enactment invalid unless satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of its repugnance to the constitution, and nothing but a clear violation of the constitution— a clear usurpation of power prohibited—will warrant the judiciary in declaring an act of the legislature unconstitutional and void. Cooley, Const Lim. 181; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 128, 3 L. Ed. 162; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 270, 6 L. Ed....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Lewiston v. Verrinder
...the Excessive Fines Clause demonstrate the centrality of proportionality to the excessiveness inquiry ....").[¶50] In State v. Lubee , 93 Me. 418, 421, 45 A. 520 (1899), we stated, "In determining the question whether the punishment imposed by a statute is proportional to the offense, or wh......
-
State v. Gilman
...324 A.2d 739, 745-46 (Me. 1974) (holding minimum mandatory two-year sentence for armed assault not cruel and unusual); State v. Lubee, 93 Me. 418, 45 A. 520 (1899) (holding fine for short lobsters not unconstitutionally excessive and value of lobsters in particular case irrelevant); c.f. St......
-
State v. Lopez
...of the public interest sought by it to be protected.’ " State v. Vanassche , 566 A.2d 1077, 1081 (Me. 1989) (quoting State v. Lubee , 93 Me. 418, 421, 45 A. 520 (1899) ). We have previously compared a defendant's offense to his sentence by (1) evaluating where that defendant's term of impri......
-
State v. Vanassche
...prohibiting "nighthunting" partially upon the presumption of constitutionality attaching to legislative enactments). In State v. Lubee, 93 Me. 418, 45 A. 520 (Me.1899), we held that when determining the question whether the punishment imposed is proportional to the offense, "regard must be ......
-
THE BURDENS OF THE EXCESSIVE FINES CLAUSE.
...close of the nineteenth century even stated that defendants must show facial unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Lubee. 45 A. 520, 521 (Me. 1899). In many of these cases, however, the early appellate courts emphasized that even if facially valid, sentencing judges were m......