Tumey v. State of Ohio
| Decision Date | 07 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 527,527 |
| Citation | 71 L.Ed. 749,273 U.S. 510,50 A. L. R. 1243,47 S.Ct. 437 |
| Parties | TUMEY v. STATE OF OHIO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Edward P. Moulinier, James L. Magrish, and Harry H. Shafer, all of Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 511-512 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Wayne B. Wheeler and Edward Dunford, both of Washington, D. C., for the State of Ohio.
[Argument of Counsel from page 513 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether certain statutes of Ohio, in providing for the trial by the mayor of a village of one accused of violating the Prohibition Act of the state (Gen. Code, Ohio, § 6212-13 et seq.), deprive the accused of due process of law and violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitu- tion, because of the pecuniary and other interest which those statutes give the mayor in the result of the trial.
Tumey, the plaintiff in error hereafter to be called the defendant, was arrested and brought before Mayor Pugh, of the village of North College Hill, charged with unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor. He moved for his dismissal because of the disqualification of the mayor to try him under the Fourteenth Amendment. The mayor denied the motion, proceeded to the trial, convicted the defendant of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor within Hamilton county as charged, fined him $100, and ordered that he be imprisoned until the fine and costs were paid. He obtained a bill of exceptions and carried the case on error to the court of common pleas of Hamilton county. That court heard the case and reversed the judgment, on the ground that the mayor was disqualified as claimed. 25 Ohio Nisi Prius (N. S.) 580. The state sought review by the Court of Appeals of the First Appellate District of Ohio, which reversed the common pleas and affirmed the judgment of the mayor. 23 Ohio Law Reporter, 634.
On May 4, 1926, the state Supreme Court refused defendant's application to require the Court of Appeals to certify its record in the case. The defendant then filed a petition in error in that court as of right, asking that the judgment of the mayor's court and of the appellate court be reversed on constitutional grounds. On May 11, 1926, the Supreme Court adjudged that the petition be dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question was involved in the cause. The judgment was then brought here upon a writ of error allowed by the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court, to which it was rightly directed. Matthews v. Huwe, Treasurer, 269 U. S. 262, 46 S. Ct. 108, 70 L. Ed. 266; Hetrick v. Village of Lindsey, 265 U. S. 384, 44 S. Ct. 486, 68 L. Ed. 1065. This brings us to the merits of the case.
The defendant was arrested and charged with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor at White Oak, another village in Hamilton county, Ohio, on a warrant issued by the mayor of North College Hill. The mayor acted under the sections of the state Prohibition Act and Ordinance No. 125 of the village of North College Hill adopted by pursuance thereof.
Section 6212-15, General Code, Ohio, provides that:
'No person shall, after the passage of this act * * * manufacture, * * * possess, * * * any intoxicating liquors. * * *'
Section 6212-17 provides that:
'* * * Any person who violates the provisions of this act (G. C. §§ 6212-13 to 6212-20) for a first offense shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars; for a second offense he shall be fined not less than three hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars; for a third and each subsequent offense, he shall be fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars and be imprisoned in the state penitentiary not less than one year nor more than five years. * * *'
The mayor has authority, which he exercised in this case, to order that the person sentenced to pay a fine shall remain in prison until the fine and costs are paid. At the time of this sentence, the prisoner received a credit of 60 cents a day for each day's imprisonment. By a recent amendment, that credit has increased to $1.50 a day Sections 13716, 13717, Gen. Code Ohio.
Section 6212-18 provides, in part, that:
'Any justice of the peace, mayor, municipal or police judge, probate or common pleas judge within the county with whom the affidavit is filed charging a violation of any of the provisions of this act (G. C. §§ 6212-13 to 6212-20) when the offense is alleged to have been committed in the county in which such mayor, justice of the peace, or judge may be sitting, shall have final jurisdiction to try such cases upon such affidavits without a jury, unless imprisonment is a part to the penalty, but error may be prosecuted to the judgment of such mayor, justice of the peace, or judge as herein provided.'
Error from the mayor's court lies to the court of common pleas of the county, and a bill of exceptions is necessary to present questions arising on the evidence. Sections 10359, 10361, General Code Ohio. The appellate review in respect to evidence is such that the judgment can only be set aside by the reviewing court on the ground that it is so clearly unsupported by the weight of the evidence as to indicate some misapprehension or mistake or bias on the part of the trial court or a wilful disregard of duties. Datesh v. State, 23 Ohio Nisi Prius (N. S.) 273.
Section 6212-19, provides that:
'Money arising from fines and forfeited bonds shall be paid one-half into the state treasury credited to the general revenue fund, one-half to the treasury of the township, municipality or county where the prosecution is held, according as to whether the officer hearing the case is a township, municipal, or county officer.'
Section 6212-37 provides that:
Under the authority of the last section, the village council of North College Hill passed Ordinance No. 125, as follows:
'An ordinance to provide for compensation to be paid from the secret service funds of the village of North College Hill, Hamilton county, Ohio, created by authority of section 6212-37, of the General Code of Ohio, to detectives, secret service officers, deputy marshals' and attorneys' fees, costs, etc., for services in securing evidence necessary to conviction and prosecuting violation of the law of the state of Ohio prohibiting the liquor traffic.
'Be it ordained by the council of the village of North College Hill, Hamilton county, Ohio:
The duties of the mayor of a village in Ohio are primarily executive. Section 4248 of the General Code of Ohio provides as follows:
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. Scissor-Tail
...89 S.Ct. 337, 21 L.Ed.2d 301; Ward v. Village of Monroeville (1972) 409 U.S. 57, 93 S.Ct. 80, 34 L.Ed.2d 267; Tumey v. Ohio (1927) 273 U.S. 510, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749; see Gibson v. Berryhill (1973) 411 U.S. 564, 579, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 1698, 36 L.Ed.2d 488; American Motors Sales Corp. v. ......
-
Hawk v. Superior Court
...controversy that he cannot 'hold the balance nice, clear and true between the state and the accused . . ..' Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532, 47 S.Ct. 437, 444, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927).' The court stated that 'In making this ultimate judgment, the inquiry must be not only whether there was actu......
-
State v. Artis
...trial); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963) (complete denial of counsel); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 47 S. Ct. 437, 71 L. Ed. 749 (1927) (biased trial judge).'' Therefore, the statement in Gordon, supra, 185 Conn. 419, that Connecticut appellate court......
-
People v. Ross
...or innocence of the defendant. (See Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799; Tumey v. State of Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749; People v. Conley, supra, 64 Cal.2d 310, 319--320, 49 Cal.Rptr. 815, 411 P.2d 911; People v. McKay, supra, 37 Cal.2......
-
The Federal Circuit Holds That The Structure Of The PTAB Is Constitutional
...at *5. Mobility Workx alleged that this is an "impermissible mixing of judicial and administrative/executive roles," citing Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) and Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972). Mobility Workx, LLC, 2021 WL 4762265, at The Federal Circuit reasoned that Mobility's a......
-
The Federal Circuit Holds That The Structure Of The PTAB Is Constitutional
...at *5. Mobility Workx alleged that this is an "impermissible mixing of judicial and administrative/executive roles," citing Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) and Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972). Mobility Workx, LLC, 2021 WL 4762265, at The Federal Circuit reasoned that Mobility's a......
-
Today's Confrontation Clause (after Crawford and Melendez-diaz)
...conducting the trial before a judge or jury that is not impartial, Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 876 (1989); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), compelling an accused "to wear identifiable prison clothing at his trial by a jury," Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 75 (2006) (multiple q......
-
THE LEGALITY OF PRESIDENTIAL SELF-PARDONS.
...at 2. The Justice Department did not discuss whether that pas de deux would or should be disregarded as a sham. Cf, e.g., Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 514-15, 523 (1927) (ruling that a judge whose salary rests upon the number of judgments of conviction entered in his court is not an imparti......
-
What Ever Happened to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine? Local Land Use Decisions in an Age of Statutory Process
...564 (1973); Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972); Commonwealth Corp. v. Casualty Co., 393 U.S. 145 (1968); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927). 179. 1000 Friends of Oregon, 742 P.2d at 46. 180. Id. (citing Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U......
-
Pretrial Motions
...common law. Caperton et.al. v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. et.al., 556 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009) citing Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927). A judge who participated as counsel in an earlier proceeding of the same case should also recuse himself. Caperton et.al. v. A.T. Mas......