Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/369/369mass904.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:22:22+00:00

Document:
COMPLAINT received and sworn to in the Municipal Court for the Roxbury District on July 7, 1975.
On appeal to the Superior Court, the case was heard by Robert Sullivan, J.
Clyde D. Bergstresser (Lawrence D. Shubow with him) for the defendant.
Richard A. Voke, Assistant District Attorney (George E. Foote, Jr., with him) for the Commonwealth.
J. John Fox, pro se, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
Jeanne Baker, Richard Neumeier, Harvey Silverglate, & John Reinstein, for Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
this statute on the grounds that a mandatory one-year jail sentence on conviction constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, denies him due process of law and violates the separation of powers doctrine embodied in art. 30 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution.
We conclude that the Section 10 (a) mandatory minimum sentence of one-year imprisonment does not constitute an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power, and accordingly we affirm the judgment below.
The defendant, having been convicted and sentenced by a District Court judge, entered an appeal in the Superior Court in Suffolk County. A motion to dismiss challenging the statute's constitutionality was denied by a Superior Court judge. On the basis of a statement of agreed facts warranting a finding of guilt, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to one year in a house of correction, execution of which was stayed pending appeal.
The statement of agreed facts, which was adopted as findings of fact by the trial judge, indicates that on the evening of July 5, 1975, the defendant and another male were observed by two police officers. Seeing the officers, the defendant's companion dropped a bag containing a revolver. The defendant attempted to flee, but was apprehended by an officer who found a second gun, a .25 caliber pistol, in the defendant's possession. In response to questioning by police, the defendant admitted that he had neither a license to carry the gun nor an identification card.
It follows that the questions that we decide today concern only the statute's constitutionality, namely, whether this enactment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment or denies due process in contravention of the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions or violates art. 30 of our Declaration of Rights. We turn now to those questions.
1. The defendant contends that Section 10 (a), by imposing a mandatory minimum one-year sentence, prescribes punishment so disproportionate to the offense as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and art. 26, the parallel provision of our Declaration of Rights. Although we acknowledge that this statute imposes severe and inflexible penalties, it is not cruel and unusual in a constitutional sense.
We note at the outset that the Legislature has great latitude to determine what conduct should be regarded as criminal and to prescribe penalties to vindicate the legitimate interests of society. Commonwealth v. Morrow, 363 Mass. 601, 610-611 (1973). McDonald v. Commonwealth, 173 Mass. 322, 328 (1899). "The function of the legislature is primary, its exercises fortified by presumptions of right and legality, and is not to be interfered with lightly, nor by any judicial conception of their wisdom or propriety." Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 379 (1910). It is thus with restraint that we exercise our power of review to determine whether the punishment before us exceeds the constitutional limitations imposed by the Eighth Amendment and by art. 26.
supra at 328. This same principle was echoed by the United States Supreme Court in Weems when it stated that it is "a precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to offense." 217 U.S. at 367. Although punishment may be cruel and unusual not only in manner but length, "a heavy burden is on the sentenced defendant to establish that the punishment is disproportionate to the offense for which he was convicted." Commonwealth v. O'Neal, ante, 242, 248 (1975) (O'Neal II) (Tauro, C.J., concurring). It must be so disproportionate to the crime that "it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity." In re Lynch, 8 Cal. 3d 410, 424 (1972).
Courts, in an effort to avoid a subjective approach, have developed guidelines to determine whether punishment is constitutionally disproportionate. See, e.g., Weems v. United States, supra; In re Foss, 10 Cal. 3d 910 (1974); In re Lynch, supra; People v. Broadie, 37 N.Y.2d 100 (1975). The tripartite analysis, set forth explicitly by the California Supreme Court in In re Lynch, supra at 425-427, serves as a useful tool.
The first prong of the disproportionality test considers the nature of the offense and the offender in light of the degree of harm to society. The penological purposes of the prescribed punishment are also relevant to this analysis, see In re Foss, supra at 919-920; People v. Broadie, supra at 114, for, as stated by Mr. Justice Brennan in his concurrence in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 111 (1958), "Clearly the severity of the penalty, in the case of a serious offense, is not enough to invalidate it where the nature of the penalty is rationally directed to achieve the legitimate ends of punishment."
to the offender, is open to criticism, this is not sufficient to permit us to invalidate the present statute in view of the harm to society sought to be minimized by this legislative enactment.
dispute as to the conclusions that should be drawn from evidence relating to gun control. Nevertheless, in light of the rational inferences which the Legislature might reach, we cannot say that a one-year mandatory minimum is so disproportionate to the magnitude of the crime as to render the statute unconstitutional.
When determining disproportionality, we must further consider the penological purposes for the enactment of a mandatory minimum sentence. As recognized by the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania ex. rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, 302 U.S. 51, 55 (1937), the Legislature "may inflict a deserved penalty merely to vindicate the law or to deter or to reform the offender or for all of these purposes." The present statute is obviously an attempt to deter through a nondiscretionary penalty. In this regard, there is increasing support for the proposition that certainty of punishment has a significant deterrent effect on crime rates. See, e.g., J.Q. Wilson, Thinking About Crime 174-175 (1975); Antunes & Hunt, The Deterrent Impact of Criminal Sanctions: Some Implications for Criminal Justice Policy 51 J. of Urban Law 145 (1973). See also Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 302 (1972) (Brennan, J., concurring); id. at 312-313 (White, J., concurring); O'Neal II, ante, 242, 258 n.16 (1975) (Tauro, C.J., concurring); id. at 278 n.3 (Wilkins, J., concurring). Thus, the Legislature could reasonably decide that a mandatory jail sentence, which removes many of the opportunities for the exercise of discretion and leniency, would be likely to serve as an effective deterrent.
from 1969 to 1974. F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports for 1974, at 183. In addition, there is evidence to indicate that penalties less severe than those now provided for in Massachusetts have failed to deter offenders from committing the same crime or other violent crimes. Id. at 49-51. For instance, "[o]f the 3,203 offenders being released in 1972, from a weapons violation, 11 percent were rearrested for a violent crime within three years." Id. at 47. Although there is serious debate as to the effectiveness of harsh penalties in reducing crime, see, e.g., J.Q. Wilson, supra at 174-175; F. Zimring & G. Hawkins, Deterrence (1973), we cannot say that the Legislature has exceeded its prerogative in determining that a mandatory minimum sentence would serve to deter more effectively than a less severe penalty. See Furman v. Georgia, supra at 280-281 (Brennan, J., concurring).
The second and third prongs of the disproportionality analysis proposed in Lynch involve a comparison of the challenged punishment with other punishments imposed within the State, as well as with punishments imposed for the same or similar crimes in other jurisdictions. 8 Cal. 3d at 426-427.
We are aware of no other State that subjects a first offender to a mandatory sentence for the carrying of a firearm without a license, but we note that other jurisdictions have enacted legislation that provides for a maximum penalty that is equal to if not more severe than the five-year prison term set forth in G. L. c. 269, Section 10 (a). See, e.g., Iowa (Iowa Code Ann. Sections 695.2-695.3  [Supp. 1975] -- a fine of not more than $1,000 or not more than five years' imprisonment for the unlawful carrying of a concealed weapon); New Jersey (N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:85-6, 2A:151-46  -- a fine of up to $2,000 or imprisonment for up to seven years for the unlawful possession of a firearm); Pennsylvania (18 Pa. Stat. Ann.
minimum sentence of one year for the offense in question does not present such a case.
2. The defendant further challenges Section 10 (a) as constituting a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and parallel provisions of our State Constitution, arts. 1, 10 and 12 of the Declaration of Rights. Under this heading, the defendant sets forth two contentions -- (a) that the imposition of a mandatory sentence for a crime that requires no proof of scienter offends the due process clause, and (b) that the Section 10 (a) sentencing provisions, under either the "strict scrutiny" or "rational relation" test, lack sufficient justification to comply with due process. We examine these arguments seriatim.
(a) We note initially that a strict liability offense does not necessarily constitute a denial of due process. Commonwealth v. Moore, 359 Mass. 509, 515 (1971). It is well settled that ". . . the Legislature may determine what shall be deemed a 'public welfare offense' punishable notwithstanding innocent intent. . . ." Commonwealth v. Buckley, 354 Mass. 508, 510 (1968), quoting from Commonwealth v. Murphy, 342 Mass. 393, 397 (1961). Nonetheless, mindful of the constitutional limitations imposed by Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957), and the need to avoid possible constitutional doubts, see Commonwealth v. Buckley, supra at 512, we interpret Section 10 (a) as requiring, as a necessary element of the offense, proof that the accused knew that he was carrying a firearm. As we said in Commonwealth v. Boone, 356 Mass. 85, 87 (1969), when interpreting G. L. c. 269, Section 10, the predecessor to Section 10 (a), "We would not feel justified in ruling that knowledge is not necessary where the penalty is so severe." See generally Commonwealth v. Crosscup, ante, 228, 234-236 (1975). Although we require proof of knowledge, the trial judge could infer from the facts in this case that the defendant did know that he was carrying a firearm, and, thus the judgment below need not be disturbed.
(b) Turning to the defendant's second argument, we conclude, contrary to his contention that fundamental interests are at stake which in turn involve the "compelling State interest" test, that the requisite standard of judicial review is the traditional "rational relation" test. Following such an analysis, we find that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the statute is without a reasonable basis.
920-925 infra, we find no violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and, therefore, we cannot agree that this statute, by curtailing traditional functions of the judiciary and the executive, impinges on a fundamental right. Cf. Pinnick v. Cleary, 360 Mass. 1, 12-13 (1971). Nor do we find any merit in the novel argument that a severe penalty for a public welfare or strict liability offense requires the rigorous form of due process analysis. Cf. Commonwealth v. Moore, 359, Mass. 509, 515 (1971); United States v. Freed, supra. Those interests which are considered fundamental by this court were enumerated in Commonwealth v. O'Neal, 367 Mass. 440, 448-449 (1975) (O'Neal I). Thereafter, in O'Neal II, ante, 242 (1975), although subjecting the mandatory death penalty prescribed by G. L. c. 265, Section 2, to strict scrutiny, the court was careful to differentiate capital punishment from all other punishments because of the absolute and irreversible deprivation involved. Id. at 246 n.2. There is no doubt that a penalty such as that provided by Section 10 (a) does not demand and will not be given exacting scrutiny. See id. at 246 n.2.
Co. v. Director of the Div. on the Necessaries of Life, 307 Mass. 408, 418 (1940). "Enforcement is to be refused only when it is in manifest excess of legislative power." Commonwealth v. Finnigan, supra at 379. See generally Mobil Oil Corp. v. Attorney Gen., 361 Mass. 401 (1972).
Mass. 187, 189 (1939). It is not the court's prerogative "to launch an inquiry to resolve a debate which has already been settled in the legislative forum." Commonwealth v. Leis, supra at 202 (Kirk, J., concurring). Accordingly, in the absence of factual data showing that Section 10 (a) does not serve the objectives for which it was designed, we find that the defendant has failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating that this statute lacks a rational basis.
3. We now turn to the defendant's argument that Section 10 (a), by imposing a mandatory minimum sentence, infringes on judicial discretion in violation of the separation of powers doctrine embodied in art. 30 of the Declaration of Rights. [Note 9] It would appear that the defendant contends that the judiciary has the inherent power to defer imposition of sentence by means of probation, a continuance without a finding, or the filing of a case, and that Section 10 (a), by abrogating these fundamental judicial powers, therefore exceeds legislative authority under art. 30. The defendant distinguishes the means used to defer or suspend the imposition of sentence from that used to suspend the execution of sentence (see G. L. c. 279, Sections 1, 1A), and apparently argues that, while the Legislature may be able to limit a court's ability to suspend a sentence, it has no power to regulate judicial authority to make an appropriate disposition prior to the imposition of sentence. We do not agree.
can be exercised in the absence of a statute. Rather, we assume without deciding that these powers are of common law and not of statutory origin. Thus, we limit our inquiry to whether the authority to defer imposition of sentence is so fundamental to the existence of the judicial department as to be considered an inherent power that cannot be restricted or abolished by the General Court without violating art. 30. If, on the other hand, the power to suspend the imposition of sentence is not an inherent power, it is clear that under pt. 2, c. 6, art. 6, of the Massachusetts Constitution, the Legislature has the authority to abrogate or modify common law practices and may therefore limit this power by statute. See Pinnick v. Cleary, 360 Mass. 1, 11-12 (1971); Wales v. Belcher, 3 Pick. 508, 510 (1826).
be recognized by statute, are inherent and exist without a statute, for they "directly affect the capacity of the judicial department to function." Opinion of the Justices, supra at 613. An inherent power is one "essential to the performance of their [the courts'] functions, to the maintenance of their authority, and to their capacity to determine the rights of parties according to law. This power cannot be dispensed with in a court because it is necessary to the execution of all its other powers." Blankenburg v. Commonwealth, 260 Mass. 369, 373 (1927). See Crocker v. Superior Court, supra at 179. While it may have been that judges at early common law, in response to an excessively harsh criminal justice system, cf. Ex parte United States, petitioner, 242 U.S. 27, 44 (1916), developed means to avoid its rigidity, we cannot say that these practices have attained a constitutional status. The ability to defer the imposition of sentence, although a valuable feature in our legal system, is not necessary to the very existence of a court, and, as such, is not an inherent power beyond statutory limitation.
supra at 42, "if it be that the plain legislative command fixing a specific punishment for crime is subject to be permanently set aside by an implied judicial power upon considerations extraneous to the legality of the conviction, it would seem necessarily to follow that there could be likewise implied a discretionary authority to permanently refuse to try a criminal charge because of the conclusion that a particular act made criminal by law ought not to be treated as criminal. And thus it would come to pass that the possession by the judicial department of power to permanently refuse to enforce a law would result in the destruction of the conceded powers of the other departments and hence leave no law to be enforced." Cited in part in Commonwealth v. Brandano, 359 Mass. 332, 336 (1971).
We note that the defendant cites no case in this jurisdiction to support the proposition that the Legislature cannot limit a court's probationary powers, but only cites authorities to indicate that this power existed at common law. While this issue never has been addressed directly by this court, we believe that prior cases implicitly recognize that the power to suspend imposition of sentence is not an inherent power. For instance, in Finer v. Commonwealth, 250 Mass. 493, 496 (1925), the court stated that "[t]he establishment of the probation system and the limitations upon its exercise are set forth in the statutes. The bounds imposed by the statute must be observed when the machinery provided by the probation system is invoked." Cf. Commonwealth v. Sawicki, ante, 377 (1975). We also note that the Legislature has limited without challenge the court's discretion to defer imposition of sentence for many years. See. e.g., Carter, Some Aspects of Massachusetts Probation Law and Practice, 42 B.U.L. Rev. 32, 38 (1962), and G. L. c. 276, Section 87; c. 265, Section 13C; and c. 266, Section 14.
opinion), and cases cited therein, we believe that this is contrary to the preferable approach that has been adopted by a growing majority of States. See. e.g., Pete v. State, 379 P.2d 625 (Alaska 1963); Smith v. State, 37 Ariz. 262 (1930); State v. Wright, supra; State v. Farmer, 324 A.2d 739 (Me. 1974); State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 85 Nev. 485 (1969); Rightnour v. Gladden, 219 Ore. 342 (1959); State ex rel. Woodhouse v. Dore, 69 Wash. 2d 64 (1966); Hicklin v. State, 535 P.2d 743 (Wyo. 1975). In addition, only one case, State v. McCoy, 94 Idaho 236 (1971), that invalidates a mandatory sentence on the basis of the separation of powers doctrine has been brought to our attention. This case has been the subject of criticism, see McMeen, The Constitutional Power of Idaho Courts to Suspend Sentence: The Uncertain Meaning of State of Idaho v. McCoy, 11 Idaho L. Rev. 29 (1974); comment, The Constitutionality of Mandatory Sentence Statutes, 29 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 164 (1972), and is contrary to the law of other jurisdictions. See, e.g., State v. Normand, 285 So. 2d 210 (La. 1973); State v. Farmer, supra; State ex rel. Sonner v. Shearin, 272 Md. 502 (1974); Black v. State, 509 P.2d 941 (Okla. Crim. 1973); State v. Butterfield, 12 Wash. App. 745 (1974). It is also well settled at the Federal level that suspension of sentence and probation are not inherent powers, Affronti v. United States, 350 U.S. 79 (1955); Ex parte United States, petitioner, 242 U.S. 27 (1916), and therefore that a mandatory sentence does not encroach upon judicial authority. See, e.g., Gallego v. United States, 276 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1960); Lathem v. United States, 259 F.2d 393 (5th Cir. 1958); United States ex rel. England v. Anderson, 347 F. Supp. 115 (D. Del. 1972); United States v. Lewis, 300 F. Supp. 1171 (E.D. Pa. 1969).
sentence for the carrying of a firearm without a license does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, deny the defendant due process or equal protection of the laws, see Commonwealth v. McQuoid, post, 925 (1976), nor does it violate art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
"(3) having in effect a firearm identification card issued under section one hundred and twenty-nine B of chapter one hundred and forty; . . .
. . . . "shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half nor more than five years, or for not less than one year nor more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction. The sentence imposed upon such person shall not be reduced to less than one year, nor suspended, nor shall any person convicted under this subsection (a) be eligible for probation, parole, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served one year of such sentence. Prosecutions commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file. . . ."
[Note 2] Although G. L. c. 269, Section 10, was further amended by St. 1975, c. 4, which postponed the effective date of the statute from January 1, 1975, to April 1, 1975, and by St. 1975, c. 113, Section 2, see note 1 supra, the penalties for unlawful carrying of a firearm were left intact.
[Note 3] We also add that the case before us raises only the issue of whether Section 10 (a) is a constitutional exercise of legislative authority; there is no claim that the defendant's conduct does not fall within the proscription of the statute. We are not called on at this time to interpret, for example, the extensive and complex list of exemptions set forth in c. 140, Section 129C. Although there will no doubt be instances where a person found carrying a firearm without a license cannot be convicted under Section 10 (a), it would be inappropriate at this time to try to anticipate those situations, but rather we must reserve decision until such time as the proper case is before us.
[Note 4] General Laws c. 269, Section 10 (d), as amended by St. 1974, c. 649, Section 2, imposes a sentence of not less than five years nor more than seven for a second offender, seven to ten years for a third offender and ten to fifteen years for a fourth offender and provides that the sentence shall not be suspended, nor shall the defendant be eligible for probation or good conduct deduction. Prior to this amendment in 1974, G. L. c. 269, Section 10, contained similar penalties for recidivists.
[Note 5] We note that harsh, mandatory penalties have been upheld consistently in the face of an Eighth Amendment challenge. See, e.g., United States v. Beverley, 416 F.2d 263 (9th Cir. 1969) (twenty-five-year mandatory sentence for aggravated mail robbery); Gallego v. United States, 276 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1960) (five-year minimum sentence for the unlawful importation of marihuana by a first offender with no probation, suspension or parole allowed); United States ex rel. England v. Anderson, 347 F. Supp. 115 (D. Del. 1972) (mandatory minimum sentence of five years for the possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony); People v. Broadie, 37 N.Y.2d 100 (1975) (mandatory maximum term of life imprisonment and minimums from one or six years to eight and one-third years for the sale of narcotics).
[Note 6] Although not more severe than Section 10 (a), G. L. c. 271, Section 10, provides that a person twice convicted of certain gambling offenses, which are crimes against the public welfare as is the unlawful carrying of a firearm, is subjected to three months to one year in jail with no possibility of a suspended sentence.
[Note 7] We need not at this time address the constitutionality of G. L. c. 278, Section 7, which places the burden on the defendant to prove that he was licensed to carry a pistol. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 359 Mass. 758 (1971), where we upheld the procedure established by c. 278, Section 7, and Commonwealth v. Pauley, 368 Mass. 286, 299-300 n.17 (1975). This issue, as the defendant concedes, is foreclosed by the statement of agreed facts.
[Note 8] See, e.g., J.Q. Wilson, Thinking About Crime (1975); A.B.A. Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures, Approved Draft (1968) Section 3.2. (a), at 142; Council of Judges of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Model Sentencing Act (2d ed. 1972), comment on Section 13; Dershowitz, Let the Punishment Fit the Crime, N.Y. Times, Dec. 28, 1975 (Magazine), at 7.
[Note 9] Article 30 of the Declaration of Rights reads as follows: "In the government of this Commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."

References: art. 30
 art. 30
 art. 26
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 26
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 30
 art. 30
 art. 30
 art. 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
in Fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 30
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.