Document: 385 U.S. 554 87 S.Ct. 648 17 L.Ed.2d 606 Leon SPENCER, Appellant,v.STATE OF TEXAS. Robert A. BELL, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE William Everett REED, George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections. Nos. 68—70. Argued Oct. and 18, 1966. Decided Jan. 23, 1967. Rehearings Denied March 13, See 386 369, 1015, 1016. No. 68: Michael D. Matheny, Tyler, Tex., for appellant. B. Douglas, Austin, appellee. 69: Tom R. Scott, Midland, petitioner. Hawthorne Phillips, respondent. 70: Emmett Colvin, Dallas, Howard Fender, Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion Court. 1 Texas, reflecting widely established policies in criminal law this country, has long had on its books so-called recidivist or habitual-criminal statutes. Their effect is to enhance punishment those found guilty crime who are also shown have been convicted other crimes past. The three cases at hand challenge procedures employed by enforcement such statutes.1 2 Until recently, time convictions before us, essence was that, through allegations indictment introduction proof respecting a defendant's past convictions, jury trying pending charge fully informed previous derelictions, but charged court that matters were not be taken into account assessing defendan's guilt innocence under current indictment.2 3 facts now here these. In Spencer (No. 68), petitioner3 indicted murder, with malice, his common-law wife. alleged defendant previously murder factor which if proved would entitle sentence death prison less than life Pen.Code Art. 64, n. 1, supra, whereas prior conviction could fix penalty term two years, see 1257. made timely objections reading portion indictment, objected as well evidence show conviction. it maliciously killed victim, he 'assess confinement penitentiary life.' instructed should consider any being tried. sentenced death. 4 Bell 69), petitioner robbery, bank robbery United States District Court Southern Texas. moved quash ground, similar Spencer, allegation offense prejudicial deprive him fair trial. Similar offer documentary prove court's stated considered passing upon issue primary charge. sentencing procedure non-capital case somewhat different from Spencer. only present charge, five years nor more life. Pen. Code 1408. But bring verdict assault further finding 'charging final true.' so found, judge fixed punishment, set offender, imprisonment penitentiary. 62, note supra. 5 Reed 70),4 involving third-offender prosecution burglary, 63, entailed same practice followed Bell. 6 common sole constitutional claim these Texas' use trial each egregiously unfair offend provisions Fourteenth Amendment no State shall 'deprive person life, liberty, property, without due process * *.' We took review, 382 1022, 1023, 1025, 86 649, 15 537, 538, 539, because courts appeals divided issue.5 For reasons follow we affirm judgments below. 7 road decision, seems clearly indicated both what petitioners do conted course authorities closely related fields. No statutes themselves unconstitutional, there our cases. Such enhanced-sentence laws, designed implement their underlying policies, enacted all States,6 Federal Government well. e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2114; Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 32(c)(2); D.C.Code 22—104 (1961). statutes, though precise procedural circumstances involved, sustained several occasions against contentions they violate strictures dealing double jeopardy, ex post facto cruel unusual process, equal protection, privileges immunities. Moore Missouri, 159 673, 16 179, 40 L.Ed. 301; McDonald Commonwealth Massachusetts, 180 311, 21 389, 45 542; Graham West Virginia, 224 616, 32 583, 56 917; Gryger Burke, 334 728, 68 1256, 92 1683; Oyler Boles, 368 448, 82 501, 446. 8 Nor contended unconstitutional assess meted out capital case, make findings whether even enhanced left imposed judge. always given wide leeway dividing responsibility between Hallinger Davis, 146 314, 13 105, 36 986; Maxwell Dow, 176 581, 20 44 597; cf. Chandler Fretag, 348 3, 75 99 4; Giaccio Pennsylvania, 399, 405, 8, 518, 522, 447. 9 Petitioners appear arguing Constitution infringed told crimes. rules concerning offenses complex, vary jurisdiction jurisdiction, can summarized broadly. Because generally recognized potentiality prejudice, usually excluded except when particularly probative showing things intent. Nye & Nissen States, 336 613, 69 766, 93 919, Ellisor State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 282 S.W.2d 393; an element crime, Doyle 59 39, 126 S.W. 1131; identity, Chavira 167 197, 319 115; Moss Tex.Cr.App., 364 389; motive, Moses 168 Tex. Cr.R. 409, 328 885; system activity, Haley 519, 223 202; raised character, Michelson 335 469, 213, 168, Perkins 152 321, 213 681; testified seeks impeach credibility, Giacone 124 141, 62 986.7 10 Under defendants today might admissible one universally accepted reasons. situations, learns committed defendant, conceded possibility prejudice believed outweighed validity State's purpose permitting evidence. defendants' interests protected limiting instructions, discretion residing limit forbid admission rule Spears 153 14, 216 812; Wigmore, Evidence 29a (3d ed. 1940); Uniform Rule 45; Model Evidence, 303. 11 This general survey sufficiently indicates evidence, chiefly developed evolved reconcile type information will some admitted usefulness large number valid purposes. itself usually, almost always, kind, us presentation way inflammatory. Compare Marshall 360 310, 79 1171, 1250. To say simply may instructions inadequate vitiate effects, inroads entire complex code state evidentiary law, threaten areas jurisprudence. example, joint trials, codefendants multiple offenses, furnish inherent opportunities unfairness submitted (on acquittal) influence totally Delli Paoli 352 232, 77 294, 278; Opper 84, 158, 101; Krulewitch 440, 716, 790. acknowledged inhere practice, justified grounds (1) expected proper function, (2) convenience person, connected defendants, governmental interest. 12 approach fact 168. There, federal prosecution, permitted cross-examine defense witnesses character question them about Court, recognizing noted 'limiting subject difficult comprehend apply various subjects;' id., 485, 223, held best forum developing would, therefore, proscribe long-standing issue. A fortiori, reasoning applies arise termed supervisory power over proceedings lower courts, Cheff Schnackenberg, 384 373, 1523, 629, form require fashion courts. It noteworthy nowhere did dissenting opinions terms. nonetheless instance Due Process Clause requires exclusion habitual-offender statute—is served. recognize prior-crime one-stage thought represent cogent interest does purposes, applying enhancement-of-sentence available suited situations introduced. think distinction lead result. 14 Cases proceeded premise guarantees fundamental elements fairness See, Tumey Ohio, 273 510, 47 437, 71 749; Betts Brady, 316 455, 1252, 1595; Gideon Wainwright, 372 335, 83 792, 799; Estes 381 532, 85 1628, 543; Sheppard Maxwell, 333, 1507, 600; Griffin People Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 100 891. never establish rule-making organ promulgation procedure. And none specific ordains authority. face legitimate widespread attend attack here, find impossible collateral rendered interpreted applied As Cardozo occasion remark, 'does run foul another method seem thinking fairer wiser give surer promise protection prisoner bar.' Snyder 291 97, 54 330, 332, 78 674. Buchalter New York, 427, 63 1129, 1492. Petitioners' reliance Jackson Denno, 378 368, 84 1774, 908, misplaced. There York leaving alone voluntariness challenged confession, area characterized development stiff rules. Rogers Richmond, 365 534, 81 735, 760; Miranda Arizona, 436, 1602, 694. judicial ruling first required determine matter law—federal law—the confession deemed voluntary. requirement threshold hearing lends solid support argument two-stage whenever invoke statute. true supported holding 'reliable' vehicle determining jurors difficulty separating issues innocence. emphasis right, remedy ensure involuntary relied jury. contrast, right—such confessions—is involved; placed solely 'fairness' approach. caution striking down procedures. extravagant extreme take evincing distrust part ability juries task responsibly sort discrete standing proposition purge erroneous rightful purpose. Leland Oregon, 343 790, 72 1002, 96 1302.8 neither decision remotely supports free enact chosen admit during tending statutory scheme. Tolerance spectrum problem especially appropriate here. rate recidivism high,9 variety methods exists, experimentation progress. used trial, course, simplest known procedure.10 Some jurisdictions deal separate proceeding, see, 446, already observed (n. 2, supra) extent recently changed course. proceeding instituted after new substantive offense, Ore.Rev.Stat. 168.040 (1959); 917. varies affording issue, Fla.Stat.Ann. 755.11 (1965); court, 32(a); Mo.Rev.Stat. 556.280(2) (1959).11 Another procedure, Great Britain Connecticut, Coinage Offences Act, 1861, 24 25 Vict., c. 99; Ferrone, Conn. 160, 113 452, allege conviction, parts read relating If convicted, prior-offense then considers factual raised. Yet relies parole withhold accordance convictions. N.J.Stat.Ann. 30:4—123.12 (1964). within broad described, variations occur. determination 'best' necessarily involves consideration criteria, provides most adequate notice opportunity accuracy meets particular jurisdiction's allocation jury, accommodated procedures, apt least terms ultimate English-Connecticut style probably fairest, commentators suggested,12 agree legislative context, far cry handling compelled Amendment. Two-part trials rare jurisprudence; procedure.13 With major is, substantial changes countless local around country sustain petitioners. unwilling do. step quite beyond pale Court's function system. wholly unjustifiable encroachment promulgate own try state-created prohibited provision Constitution, not. affirmed. 19 Affirmed. STEWART, concurring. gave me roving commission impose my notions enlightened policy, I join opinion. clear adopted recent many States1—and herself since January last year2 superior utilized us. applaud personally approve fall below minimum level tolerate. Upon am constrained judgment 22 Chief WARREN, whom FORTAS concurs, 69, concurring 70. 23 disposition amorphous proceed hesitantly courtroom attempts bolster arguments pointing traditionally serve discuss, decision. persuaded cautious attitude toward criteria drawn traditional jurisprudential attitudes legal rather relatively command. However, central importance maintaining liberties. Frankfurter often reminded history individual liberty largely coincident observance safeguards, Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee McGrath, 341 123, Frankfurther, J., U.S., 164, 624, 644, 95 817. prior-convictions fundamentally odds nicest resolution conflicting accused, needlessly prejudices accused advancing State. wrong serves alone, states advanced failure, view, undermines logic much said repeating offenders, agree, prior-crimes having relevance cannot either purposes analogy where admitted. faces up justify ground showed propensity. 26 Recidivist allow probability justification subsequent offenses. embody four rationales imposing penal sanctions.1 man's aggravate crimes, thus greater usual retribution warranted. Similarly, insulating society persons whose conduct propensity behavior, providing deterrence future rehabilitating criminals theoretically served according None justifications burden put currently recidivist. intended easier crime. argue are, constitutionally be, prosecutor introduce accused's disposition. accept, discussion, consistent process. 27 amended nearest demonstration guilty. law,2 effective 1966, therefore involved cases, felony decides charged, presented entirely places scope statute requiring punishment. old just relevant nothing whatever shows 28 Whether books, increased.3 While commit Amendment, decisions exercising courts,4 appeals5 courts,6 suggest introduced han Clause. forbidden jeopardizes presumption charged. punish feel incarceration 'bad man,' regard Of flouts human nature suppose trouble deciding him. famous phrase, '(t)he naive assumption effects overcome practicing lawyers know unmitigated fiction.' 453, 723, 790 (concurring opinion) (1949). rel. Scoleri Banmiller, 310 F.2d 720, 725 (C.A.3d Cir. 1962). Jackson's assessment received ambitious empirical study behavior attempted, Kalven Zeisel, American Jury 127—130, 177—180. 29 Recognition reasonable doubt act. surely engrained jurisprudence reputation basis sanctions. generality jury's mask based unsavory reputation, consistently refused tends something 30 stated, understand assert value bearing ignores points contexts Thus, design distinctive handiwork act presently unintentional.7 need disagree these, directly value, going charges, strong outweighs Also, out, credibility testifies behalf, counteract good character. resulting When convince unlikely counteracting convicted. initiated requiry allowed respond can. 31 testifies, theory defendant-witness' qualified record delinquent behavior. words, test witness. control decide stand. Moreover, hears following testimony, context combined instruction results actually behaving instructions: credibility. Although justifying criticized,8 necessary accept theoretical basic difference impeachment, examples cited limited completely connection 33 pointed rests conclusion prejudice. middle position alternatives because, probative, must innocent. becomes delicate balancing result (including exercise courts) draw balance view uniform tradition, apparent certain innocence, disposition, 34 From outweigh impact, draws inherently invariably prohibited. combines concededly produce logic: phase valid, proven order guilty, believe syllogism plausible surface, premises combine far-reaching fallen logical fallacy sometimes undistributed middle, failed examine supposedly shared principle statutes.9 That demonstrate former justifies latter men dogs animals means respects. 35 Unlike enhancing offenders complete irrelevance situation called impact. admitting avoided simple expedient reflects exclusive Only fits category become sentence, decided availability alternative, reflected effectuated while avoided, offset introducing inconvenience postponing falls until conducting ensues regarding 68, offered stipulate truth stipulation, choice imprisonment. reasoned existence sentence. stipulation dispensed defendant. Instead, tries refusal ordering penalty. rationale letting hear, kinds extremely probation reports, hearsay past, medical psychiatric virtually anything else exercised sentencing. evidently believes kind single-stage guilt. possible affirming obvious removes 37 reverse remand me, vestige accused. nevertheless inconsistent handled 38 What lack equally stipulating unclear right accepted, failure volunteer indicative happened right. Criminal Appeals approved Pitcock 367 864 (1963), convincing provided automatic sentencing, resolved relevant. it: '(t)o introduction, resolves accused.' S.W.2d, 865. later reversible error. Sims 388 714 Ross 401 844 (1966). reduced admonition prosecutor, conceivable reason refusing benefit impact presenting 39 merely prosecutorial discretion, 70 waived absence regarded light refused. otherwise makes explored chance stipulation. Since effectuate minimal two-part offering prevent safeguard. event violates conceding admission, petitioners' reversed. 70, however, raises retroactively collaterally attacked habeas corpus. Considerations led opening appeared achieved violation standards. retroactively, 799 (1963); Douglas California, 353, 814, 811 891 (1956); 908 (1964), concluded error perceived undermined 'the very integrity fact-finding process', Linkletter Walker, 618, 639, 1731, 1743, 601 (1965) On hand, Tehan Shott, 406, 459, 453 (1966), practices factors adverted newly retroactive effect, retroactivity administration justice. 41 application propose nonfinal came rely constitutionality review grant certiorari seriously disrupt Cf. Johnson Jersey, 719, 1772, 882 hold infected every danger convicting great 42 doctrine applied, went heart indigent represented counsel appeal negated adversary proceeding. Illinois forcing forgo meaningful pay transcript meant conditioned financial resources. denial leading rulings assured and, moreover, coerced Obviously, learning obtained unconstitutionally goes guilt; outlaw confessions unreliability, Brown Mississippi, 297 278, 461, 80 682 (1936) (for 760 (1961); Culombe 568, 1860, 1037 (1961)), 43 contrast discussed above, reversal suggests undermine process' involve 'clear innocent.' S.Ct., 1743; 416, 465. Consequently, line dissent corpus body thought. Two Courts authorize determines Lane Warden, 320 179 (C.A.4th 1963), 'it patent likely man narcotics readily aware illegal association narcotics. standards impartiality trial.' F.2d, 185. vein, Third Circuit, 720 (1962), like bar cause mind Both fact, farther England, century, guilt.10 majority cure bar. all, postpone charged.11 others substantially mitigated trial.12 still maintain exemplified small minor adjustment avoid manifest eliminated England States. 46 BRENNAN, DOUGLAS joins, dissenting. 48 THE CHIEF JUSTICE insofar 69. 601, retroactively. 811; 891; 908. Articles 64 Vernon's Ann.Texas (1952). Article provides: 'If nature, second highest affixed ordinary cases.' 'Whoever times third imprisoned penitentiary.' 'A alternate receive These embodies Crim.Proc., 642 (1941), follows: impaneled action, order: 1. attorney prosecuting. 4. testimony offered.' By gloss appears noncapital keep knowledge away 864. 389 304, inapplicability immaterial open Subsequent passed governing principal 36.01, tried older properly appeal, postponed merits, tangled one. Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. Bondurant, 257 282, 106, 66 239; Hart Wechsler, System 565—567 (1953). Rather undertake resolve it, profitable dismiss treat petition certiorari, 2103, petition, Spencer's filed alternative await outcome appeal. Accordingly referred 'petitioner.' unlike come Fifth Circuit dismissal writ Constitution. 723. Pennsylvania unconstitutional. Fourth comparable Maryland 179. Breen Beto, 96, again today, Eighth Wolfe Nash, 313 393, constitutional. Ninth Powell 941, National Prohibition Stat. 316. annotations 58 A.L.R. 20, 345, A.L.R.2d 826; Note, Procedures, N.Y.U.L.Rev. 332 (1965). reflect prevailing nearly jurisdictions. McCormick, §§ 157—158 (1954); Wharton's 221—243 (Anderson 1955); 215—218 1940 1964 Supp.); Other Crimes Trial, Yale L.J. 763 English rules, similar, Cross, 292—333 (2d 1963). Recent criticized exclusion, suggested broader range admissibility. 311; Carter, Admissibility Facts, L.Q.Rev. (1953), 214 Procedural Protections Defendant, Harv.L.Rev. 426, 435—451 continental jurisdictions, Glanville Williams, Proof Guilt 181 1958); supra 193. Indeed scholarly prone contrasts judges concludes 'Neither distinctively gullible skeptical.' Id., 180. 'Careers Crime,' statistical collected Crime Reports States—1965, p. (Dept. Justice, 1966). Statistical Abstract reveals 62% prisoners prisons year ending June 30, 1965, committed. 163. analysis Pleading Prior Convictions Habitual Prosecutions, 210 (1958). authority 1846, Reid, Procedure, Tex.L.Rev. 983, 1008—1009 Cir., 179; cautioned too hasty adoption Second Curry, 358 904, 914—915, concluded: 'Given considerations affect necessity considering questionable desirability untested technique, leave court.' discussion practical administrative disadvantages Frady 121 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 108—109, 114—115 (dissenting opinion). positive actual experience bear law. One helpful defendants: 'The California experience, dating back 1957, neglected prepare adequately exhibited sophistication mitigating. Apparently, devote bulk efforts relegate role. advantage attempted marshal aggravating exist.' Executive Clemency Capital Cases, 136, where, fixes penalty, JUSTICE'S reality require, JUSTICE, post, 586, 11. ante, 556, 2. apparently applicable below, Professor McCormick states: acts unless character.' 157 (1954 ed.). Dean Wigmore agrees statement 193—194 1940). objectionable, weight deserves punished 1250 (1948); Boyd 142 450, 292, 1077 (1892). Michelson, stated: 'Courts tradition unanimously disallow resort evil Not invests Greer 245 559, 209, closes whole prosecution's case-in-chief. acts, ill name among neighbors, logically persuasive probable perpetrator inquiry rejected irrelevant; contrary, weigh overpersuade prejudge bad deny defend overriding policy excluding despite disallowance confusion issues, surprise undue prejudice.' 475 476, 218. Marshall, reversed newspaper accounts seen jurors. '* exposure ruled reaches news evidence.' 312—313, 1173. Boyd, attempt rob, robberies Harlan, inadmissible: Those March, yet innocent Dansby April. tended jurors, minds real impression wretches lives community, entitled full beneft prescribed beings death.' 458, 295. Lovely 169 386, 1948): forbids tendency mere technical arises demand justice lies allowed, wasted greatly prejudiced embarrassed defenses really Railton 127 691, 693 (C.A.5th 1942): conclude, concluded, dishonest once steal again. certainly 'more probable' crooked official upright premises. charged.' Tedesco 118 737 (C.A.9th 1941); Swann 195 689 1952); Jacangelo, 281 574 1960). recognizes rule, Seay 395 40. typical Molineux, N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286, L.R.A. 193 (1901); 111 Utah 9, 175 P.2d 1016 (1947). Myrick, Kan. 1056, 317 485 (1957); Scarbrough 204 Miss. 487, So.2d 748 (1948). exceptions 157. Trial: Balancing Matters, Stebbing, Modern Introduction Logic 88 (6th 1948). Act Will. 4, 111; Reg. Shuttleworth, Car. K. 375. legislation separates are: Alaska, Alaska 12.55.060 (1962); Arkansas, Miller 239 Ark. 836, 394 Colorado, Heinze People, Colo. 54, 253 596 (1953); 452 (1921); Delaware, Del.Code Ann., Tit. 11, 3912(b) (Supp.1964); Florida, 775.11 Shargaa Fla., 102 814 (1958); Idaho, Johnson, Idaho 51, 383 326 Ill.Rev.Stat. 38, 603.1—603.9 22—43 Kansas, Kan.Gen.Stat.Ann. 21—107a (1949); Louisiana, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 15:529.1(D) (Supp.1962); Maryland, Md.Rule Proc. 713; Michigan, Mich.Stat.Ann. 28.1085 (1954), Comp.Laws 1948, 769.13; Minnesota, Minn.Stat.Ann. 609.16; Mo.Ann.Stat. 556.280 Nebraska, Neb.Rev.Stat. 29—2221 (1964); N.Y.Penal Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, 40, 1943; Mexico, Cox, N.M. 55, 380 199 North Dakota, N.D.Cent.Code 12—06—23 (1960); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. 2961.13 Oklahoma, Okla.Stat.Ann.Tit. 22, 860 (Supp.1964), Harris Okl.Cr.App., 369 187 168.065 Pa.Stat.Ann.Tit. 5108 South S.D.Code 13.0611(3) (1939); Tennessee, Tenn.Code 40—2801 (1955), Harrison Tenn., 713 36.01 (1966); Utah, 76—1—19 Stewart, 110 203, 171 (1946); Va.Code 53—296 Washington, Kirkpatrick, Wash. 313, (1935); W.Va.Code 6131 addition convict eligible parole, entrust boards: Miss.Code 4004—03 amended, Miss.Laws 1964, 366; N.J.Rev.Stat. 2A:85—13 (Supp.1966), N.J.S.A. nonprejudicial Ariz.Rule 180, A.R.S., Ariz.Code 44—1004 (1939), Montgomery Eyman, Ariz. 391 915 Cal.Penal Hobbs, Cal.App.2d 98 775 (1940); Wisconsin, Meyer, 258 Wis. 326, N.W.2d (1951).

Category: 0