The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1891-11-21
Curious Features Of tho Almy Trial.

The legal procedure in the ALMY case in
New Hampshire differs strikingly from the
course which would be pursued in similar
case by the courts in New York.
The prisoner was indicted for the crime OF
murder in the first degree. He pleaded
guilty. and the Judges Of the Supreme Court
Of New Hampshire then took evidence to
ascertain and determine tho degree of hon.
icide, OF which he should BIO convicted. In
this State no conviction at all could be based
upon such a plea as was interposed by
AhMY. The Penal Code was amended
In 1889 80 as to prohibit any convic-
ton upon a plea Of guilty where the
crime charged Is punishable by death. or
where the crime charged Is or may be pun
ishable by imprisonment In State prison
for the term OF life. The plea Of guilty.
therefore, is thus practically abolished. not
only In cases Of murder. but in respect to
indictments for some crimes Of less gravity
For example. the law prescribes imprison-
ment for not less than ten years rs the
punishment for arson In the first degree,
forgery in the first degree. and burglary In
the first degree. In any Of these cases.
however. the court might sentence the con-
and. therefore. the statute is applicable
which prohibits q conviction upon a plea OF
guilty whenever the crime charged may be
punished by a lifelong incarceration.
Another strange feature Of the ALMY case
was the absence Of the prisoner at the time
when Judgment was rendered. 1t Is stated
that his counsel waived his right to be
present. Probably the validity OF such
waiver is established by statute or judicial
precedent in the State OF New Hampshire.
According. however, To Mr.. BISHOP. the
well-known writer on criminal law. the
weight OF authority in England and Amer
lea appears to be against the power of the
trial court to render Judgment OF convic-
ton against prisoner in n case OF felony
unless he is actually present at the time.
I'm felonies." says that learned writer. "it
is not in the power Of tho prisoner. either
by himself or by his counsel. to waive the
right to be personally present during
the trial. Such was the doctrine laid
down by the Pennsylvania court: and
where prisoner indicted for burglary and
larceny waived his right to DO present at
the rendition Of the verdict. and verdict
was given against him in his absence. the
judgment thereon was reversed" In the
case to which Mr. BISHOP thus refers Chief
Justice GIBSON said that 1t would be con-
trary to the dictates OF humanity to let
prisoner waive the advantage which view
Of his sad plight might give him by inclin-
ing the hearts Of the jurors to listen to his
defence with indulgence. 1t may be OBJ
served. however. that this suggestion would
have no application to case like ALMY's.
where plea OF guilty was interposed and
there was no jury.
Independently OF the general rule OF law
on tho subject, thore Is a particular
statutory requirement here In Now York
which seems to render the presence OF the
prisoner Indispensable at the time when
judgment Is pronounced; for section $50 OF
the Code Of Criminal Procedure prescribes
that upon the arraignment Of the defendant
for judgement. "he must bs asked by the
CsEk whether hs hsvs any legal cause TO