Document: 399 U.S. 66 90 S.Ct. 1886 26 L.Ed.2d 437 Robert BALDWIN, Appellant,v.State of NEW YORK. No. 188. Argued Dec. 9, 1969. Decided June 22, 1970. William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant. Michael R. Juviler, appellee. Mr. Justice WHITE announced the judgment Court and delivered an opinion in which BRANNAN MARSHALL join. 1 Appellant was arrested charged with 'jostling'—a Class A misdemeanor York, punishable by a maximum term imprisonment one year.1 He brought to trial City Criminal Court. Section 40 Act declares that all trials court shall be without jury.2 Appellant's pretrial motion jury accordingly denied. convicted sentenced term. The Appeals affirmed conviction, rejecting appellant's argument § unconstitutional insofar as it denied him opportunity trial.3 We noted probable jurisdiction.4 reverse. 2 In Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 145, 88 1444, 20 491 (1968), we held Sixth Amendment, applied States through Fourteenth, requires defendants accused serious crimes afforded right jury. also reaffirmed long-established view so-called 'petty offenses' may tried jury.5 Thus tesk before us this case is essential if not wholly satisfactory one, see Duncan, at 161, 1453, determining line between 'petty' 'serious' purposes Amendment trial. 3 Prior cases narrow our inquiry furnish standard used resolving issue. deciding whether offense 'petty,' have sought objective criteria reflecting seriousness society regards offense, District Columbia Clawans, 300 617, 628, 57 660, 663, 81 L.Ed. 843 (1937), found most relevant such severity authorized penalty. Frank United States, 395 147, 148, 89 1503, 1505, 23 162 (1969); supra, U.S., 159 S.Ct., 1452—1454; 663. Applying these guidelines, possible six-month penalty short enough permit classification Dyke Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., 216, 220, 1472, 1475, 538 (1968); Cheff Schnackenberg, 384 373, 86 1523, 16 629 (1966), but two-year sufficiently require trial, supra. question possibility one-year sentence itself hold is. More specifically, concluded no can deemed where more than six months authorized.6 4 has urged draw coincide felony. As year, felony considerably longer.7 It true collateral consequences attaching conviction are severe those misdemeanor.8 And, like other distinguishes misdemeanors felonies things confinement county or regional jails, rather state prison,9 prosecution proceed information complaint, grand indictment.10 But while considerations reflect what readily admitted—that conviction—they way detract from contention some offenses. Indeed long ago declared 'is construed relating only felonies, offences penitentiary. embraces well classes misdemeanors, punishment involves involve deprivation liberty citizen.' Callan Wilson, 127 540, 549, 8 1301, 1303, 32 223 (1888).11 5 better guide '(i)n length prison trial' disclosed 'the existing laws practices Nation.' 1453. federal system, petty offenses been defined $500 fine.12 few exceptions, triable American since late 18th century were generally term.13 Indeed, when decided two Terms ago, could discover three instances State crime longer months: Louisiana scheme issue Jersey statute punishing disorderly conduct, case.14 These reduced one. response decision lowered certain months, provided still exceeds months.15 amended its persons reducing months' fine.16 Even would appellant six-man-jury he had outside York.17 entire Nation, alone denies interpose himself over commonsense his peers.18 6 number consists less 12-man, unanimous-verdict available cases.19 primary purpose prevent oppression Government; interposes accuser laymen who tutored perhaps judge panel judges, same time likely function appear another arm Government proceeded against him.20 Except criminal courts every Nation proceeds under provisions 'fundamental about exercise official power,' 156, 1451, stake individual period exceeding months. This near-uniform furnishes criterion ever drawn on basis alone—between regarded jury.21 7 Of necessity, task drawing 'requires different events which, they lie near line, actually differ very little.' One threatened find little difference potential face him, faced here. prospect however will seldom viewed trivial matter result quite repercussions affecting career reputation. Where cannot possibly imprisonment, disadvantages, onerous though be, outweighed benefits speedy inexpensive nonjury adjudications. cannot, however, conclude administrative conveniences, light now exist 50 courts, similarly justify denying important imprisonment.22 Reversed. 9 BLACKMUN took part consideration case. 10 BLACK, whom DOUGLAS joins, concurring judgment. 11 I agree here entitled year's imprisonment. governed Constitution made applicable Fourteenth Amendment. disagree, defendant's determined guarantees separate places neither does hint any Article III, 2, cl. 3, provides '(t)he Trial Crimes, except Cases Impeachment, Jury,' VI prosecutions, enjoy public impartial district wherein committed * *.' prosecutions' 'all crimes.' Many years Court, necessity amendment pursuant V, crimes' did mean crimes,' meant crimes.'1 Today members judicially amend judicial substitute phrase authorized.' definition enacted even themselves recognize consequences. reached weighing advantages defendant inconvenience inherent magically concluding scale tips Such constitutional adjudication, framed terms fairness,' 'balancing,' 'shocking conscience,' amounts mutilation written Constitution. Those wrote adopted Bill Rights engaged balancing necessary. They value far costs prosecutions.' Until language changed constitutionally prescribed method amendment, reassess balance own embodied Since there doubt Baldwin 'crime' sense word—I must reversed because benefit trial.2 12 Chief BURGER, dissenting. 13 dissent today's holding something Amendments commands provide year. BLACK correctly (Amendment VI) Crimes' (Art. 3), command States; Federal exercised limited authority 'very grave number.'1 acts authority, proscribed administration law largely province States. Founding Fathers therefore cast deal limitations power, power justice included wide range offenses, many minor cases, often affairs appreciably approved Congress 1866 ratified 1868. circumstances, properly read extending crimes. find, nothing coverage invalidate particular 14 somewhat disconcerting constant urging adjust ourselves being 'pluralistic society'—and accept broad sense—we pressure conform uniform pattern theory it. reason why infinitely complex entity should barred misdemeanants punished up 365 days' urban areas body politic fix That 'near-uniform Nation' otherwise parts affords me into there. What setting—e.g., stealing horse Cody, Wyoming, indispensable living—may considered area, procedures finding guilt fixing locales rationally each other. 'Jostling' ways legislatures attempted pickpocketing. See Denzer & McQuillan, Practice Commentary, N.Y.Penal Law, following 165.25; Note, Pickpocketing: Survey Crime Its Control, 104 U.Pa.L.Rev. 408, 419 (1955). provides: 'A person guilty jostling when, place, intentionally unnecessarily: '1. Places hand proximity person's pocket handbag; '2. Jostles crowds third handbag.' Law 165.25 (McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 40). testimony arresting officer. officer stated observed appellant, working conceit man, remove loose package unidentified woman's pocketbook after man 'body contact' her crowded escalator. both men, searched single $10 bill. No evidence introduced either side. thought police 'a forthright credible witness' guilty. subsequently year App. 1—17, 21. 'All All judge; provided, (he) advised judges thereof N.Y.C.Crim.Ct.Act (Supp.1969). 24 N.Y.2d 207, 299 N.Y.S.2d 424, 247 N.E.2d 260 (1969). 932, 2011, 447 159, (1966); (1937); Colts, 282 63, 51 52, 75 177 (1930); Schick 195 65, 826, 49 99 (1904); Natal 139 621, 636, 35 288 (1891); (1888); Frankfurter Corcoran, Petty Offenses Constitutional Guaranty Jury, 39 Harv.L.Rev. 917 (1926). Kaye, Offenders Have Peers!, U.Chi.L.Rev. 245 (1959). Decisions looked nature itself, (1930), sentence, so case, decide excess take out category 'petty.' None decisions involving cited n. 5, §§ 10.00, 70.15 (1967). Both felon misdemeanant prevented engaging variety occupations. addition, deprived civil rights, including vote office. statutes set Brief Appellant, C—1 C—6; Appellee, A8—A12. 7, supra; 70.20 N.Y.Const., Art. I, 6; N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. 222 (1958); N.Y.C.Crim.Ct. 31, 41 (1963); see, e.g., People Bellinger, 269 N.Y. 265, 199 N.E. 213 (1935); Van Dusen, 56 Misc.2d 107, 287 741 among offense. Following recent revision penal law, B 'violations' 15 days. Judge Burke dissenting below, 'an force Legislature identified class misdemeanors.' 225, 438, 260, 270 18 U.S.C. 1. 161 33, 1454; (1968). La.Crim.Proc.Code Ann., 779 (Supp.1969); Comment, Jury Louisiana—Implications 29 La.L.Rev. 118, N.J.Rev.Stat. 2A:169—4 17 Compare (Supp.1969), Uniform Dist.Ct.Act 2011 Ct.Act Because disposition jury-trial claim, unnecessary consider violated Equal Protection Clause granting identical elsewhere State. Salsburg Maryland, 346 545, 74 280, 98 281 (1954); Missouri Lewis, 101 25 989 (1880). Horowitz Neitring, Aspects Inequalities Public Education Assistance Programs From Place Within State, U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 787 804 various statutory briefs filed survey Bar Assn. Project Standards Justice, Advisory Committee Trial, 20—23 (Approved Draft 1968) (recommending fine $500, 'should upper limit upon offenses"). 19 related date six-man satisfies requirement Williams Florida, 78, 1893, 446. might requested lieu judge, hardly serve 21 relevance fact 'minor vesting jurisdiction magistrates commissioners, 3401(f) (1964 ed., Supp. IV), authorizing eavesdropping orders, 2516(2) eligibility service formerly persons, 28 1865(b)(5) IV). entirely involved attach proceeding. Nothing above Acts suggests alter long-standing '(n)otwithstanding contrary (a)ny misdemeanor, exceed both, offense.' 22 Experience notably California traffic violations, Cal.Pen.Code 689 (1956), burden slight, high waiver rate trials. H. Kalven Zeisel, 18—19 (1966). cf. (1904). My conclusion act lead 'minuscule' sanctions 159—160, 1510—1511, (1969) (dissenting opinion). There conduct fines circumstances make criminal. Not imposed proceedings, sanction bears indicia punishment, labeling 917, 975 976 (1926), authors observe: 'Until recently occasion considering dispensability enforcement presented Congress, Territories Columbia, because, whole, once number.' (Footnote omitted.) id., 934—965; 626, 662, (1937).

Category: 0