Evening star., 1947-06-25


(FoHoauing is the fert OF the decision By
the Court OF appeals in the Green casej
Appellant Nathaniel Green defendant below,
was indicted for the crime of rape in the
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia On
arraignment defendant pleaded guilty, which
plea was refused by the court, and he was tried
by a jury as upon plea of not guilty. The
jury returned verdict of guilty with the death
penalty. The court accordingly sentenced the
defendant to be executed. Exception was taken
to the refusal of the court to accept plea Of
guilty, which is the only question presented
for review
Section 808 of the District Code 81 Stat at
L. 1922, chap. 854) provides: Whoever has
carnal knowledge of a female forcibly- and
against her will, or carnally knows and abuses
female child under Is years of age, shall be
imprisoned for not less than five nor more
than 80 years: Provided, that in any case OF
rape the jury may add to their verdict if it
be guilty, the words, with the death penalty
in which case the punishment shall be death
by hanging Provided, further. that if the jury
fail to agree as to the punishment, the verdict
OF guilty shall be received. and the punishment
shall be Imprisonment as provided in this
section
Believes Court Lacks Power to Accept Plea. i
Much has been said at bar in an exceptionally
able brief by counsel for defendant of the right
of a defendant to plead guilty in capital case
when there is no statutory provision to the
contrary, and thus avoid an issue for trial by
jury. 1t is unnecessary to determine whether
defendant, in the absence of law to the con-
trary, has the right to enter a plea Of guilty
in criminal proceeding. Where the statute
permits the plea of guilty, and such plea is
accepted and entered by the court in a criminal
case, it is the highest kind of conviction of
which the case admits. In that instance, there
is nothing left for the court but to- award
judgment. In this case, however noe are con-
tronted by statutory provision which aoe think
in eject torbids the acceptance OF plea OF
guilty for the crime OF rape in this District
Section 80S, supra, specifically provides that
"in any case of rape" the jury may impose the
death penalty. AS further evidence of the inten-
ton OF Congress that all such cases shall be
tried to jury, the second proviso imposes the
smaller punishment upon verdict of guilty
where jury are unable to agree as to the
imposition OF the death penalty. The statute,
in other words. admits of one of three different
verdcts: Guilty, without assessment of the
death penalty. in which case the court imposes
sentence of imprisonment in his discretion of
from five to 30 years: guilty with the death
penalty. when the court must pass Judgment
OF death by hanging; and guilty, with division
OF opinion in the jury as to the imposition of
the death penalty, in which case the court shall
pass judgment as in the first instance; but in all
cases the court must haze the Derdict of the
jury upon io1lich to base its Judgment
In Indiana, where the statute in capital cases
prescribes the punishment of death or i'm
prisonment in the discretion of the jury, 1t has
been held that defendant in capital case
must be tried by jury, and If plea of guilty
is entered, jury must still try the issue to
determine the degree of punishment Wartner
v. State, 102 Ind. 81, 5 Am. Grim Rep. 178,
N. E. IS. The difference between the Indiana
statute and the one under consideration is
that there the whole question of punishment
Is left to the jury while here the question of
punishment is with the court, except In such
cases as the jury may assess the death penalty.
1t logically tollo,os that to determine those
cases, each case must, of necessity be submit
ted to jury fhe court is therefore without