Source: https://openjurist.org/337/us/241/williams-v-people-of-state-of-new-york
Timestamp: 2020-01-23 09:13:18
Document Index: 414616316

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 714', '§ 4202', '§ 3655', '§ 3655', '§ 3651', '§ 802', '§ 1168']

337 U.S. 241 - Williams v. People of State of New York
In addition to the historical basis for different evidentiary rules governing trial and sentencing procedures there are sound practical reasons for the distinction. In a trial before verdict the issue is whether a defendant is guilty of having engaged in certain criminal conduct of which he has been specifically accused. Rules of evidence have been fashioned for criminal trials which narrowly confine the trial contest to evidence that is strictly relevant to the particular offense charged. These rules rest in part on a necessity to prevent a time consuming and confusing trial of collateral issues. They were also designed to prevent trubunals concerned solely with the issue of guilt of a particular offense from being influenced to convict for that offense by evidence that the defendant had habitually engaged in other misconduct. A sentencing judge, however, is not confined to the narrow issue of guilt. His task within fixed statutory or constitutional limits is to determine the type and extent of punishment after the issue of guilt has been determined. Highly relevant—if not essential—to his selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant's life and characteristics.8 And modern concepts individualizing punishment have made it all the more necessary that a sentencing judge not be denied an opportunity to obtain pertinent information by a requirement of rigid adherence to restrictive rules of evidence properly applicable to the trial.
Undoubtedly the New York statutes emphasize a prevalent modern philosophy of penology that the punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime. People v. Johnson, 252 N.Y. 387, 392, 169 N.E. 619. The belief no longer prevails that every offense in a like legal category calls for an identical punishment without regard to the past life and habits of a particular offender. This whole country has traveled far from the period in which the death sentence was an automatic and commonplace result of convictions—even for offenses today deemed trivial.9 Today's philosophy of individualizing sentences makes sharp distinctions for example between first and repeated offenders.10 Indeterminate sentences, the ultimate termination of which are sometimes decided by nonjudicial agencies have to a large extent taken the place of the old rigidly fixed punishments.11 The practice of probation which relies heavily on non-judicial implementation has been accepted as a wise policy.12 Execution of the United States parole system rests on the discretion of an administrative parole board. 36 Stat. 819, 18 U.S.C. §§ 714, 716, (now §§ 4202—4204.) Retribution is no longer the dominant objective of the criminal law. Reformation and rehabilitation of offenders have become important goals of criminal jurisprudence.13
Under the practice of individualizing punishments, investigation techniques have been given an important role. Probation workers making reports of their investigations have not been trained to prosecute but to aid offenders. Their reports have been given a high value by conscientious judges who want to sentence persons on the best available information rather than on guesswork and inadequate information.14 To deprive sentencing judges of this kind of information would undermine modern penological procedural policies that have been cautiously adopted throughout the nation after careful consideration and experimentation. We must recognize that most of the information now relied upon by judges to guide them in the intelligent imposition of sentences would be unavailable if information were restricted to that given in open court by witnesse subject to cross-examination. And the modern probation report draws on information concerning every aspect of a defendant's life.15 The type and extent of this information make totally impractical if not impossible open court testimony with cross-examination. Such a procedure could endlessly delay criminal administration in a retrial of collateral issues.
The considerations we have set out admonish us against treating the due-process clause as a uniform command that courts throughout the Nation abandon their age-old practice of seeking information from out-of-court sources to guide their judgment toward a more enlightened and just sentence. New York criminal statutes set wide limits for maximum and minimum sentences.16 Under New York statutes a state judge cannot escape his grave responsibility of fixing sentence. In determining whether a defendant shall receive a one-year minimum or a twenty-year maximum sentence, we do not think the Federal Constitution restricts the view of the sentencing judge to the information received in open court. The due-process clause should not be treated as a device for freezing the evidential procedure of sentencing in the mold of trial procedure. So to treat the due-process clause would hinder if not preclude all courts—state and federal—from making progressive efforts to improve the administration of criminal justice.
Appellant was found guilty after a fairly conducted trial. His sentence followed a hearing conducted by the judge. Upon the judge's inquiry as to why sentence should not be imposed, the defendant made statements. His counsel made extended arguments. The case went to the highest court in the state, and that court had power to reverse for abuse of discretion or legal error in the imposition of the sentence.17 That court affirmed. We hold that appellant was not denied due process of law.18
Courts have treated the rules of evidence applicable to the trial procedure and the sentencing process differently. See, e.g., Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 107, 128 129, 54 S.Ct. 330, 332, 333, 340, 341, 78 L.Ed. 674, 90 A.L.R 575; Graham v. State of West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616, 619, 32 S.Ct. 583, 584, 56 L.Ed. 917; United States v. Dalhover, 7 Cir., 96 F.2d 355, 359—360. But cf. State v. Stevenson, 64 W.Va. 392, 62 S.E. 688, 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 713.
See Stephan v. United States, 6 Cir., 133 F.2d 87, 100. See also 18 U.S.C. § 3655, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3655.
2 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 1756—1757 (Lewis' Ed. 1897).
With respect to this policy in the administration of the Probation Act (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 3651—3655) this Court has said: 'It is necessary to individualize each case, to give that careful, humane, and comprehensive consideration to the particular situation of each offender which would be possible only in the exercise of a broad discretion.' Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 220, 53 S.Ct. 154, 155, 77 L.Ed. 266. In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, 302 U.S. 51, 55, 58 S.Ct. 59, 61, 82 L.Ed. 43, this Court further stated: 'For the determination of sentences, justice generally requires consideration of more than the particular acts by which the crime was committed and that there be taken into account the circumstances of the offense together with the character and propensities of the offender.' And see Wood and Waite, Crime and Its Treatment 438—442 (1941).
Wood and Waite, Crime and Its Treatment 437 (1941); Orfield, Criminal Procedure from Arrest to Appeal 556—565 (1947). See, e.g., Ill.Rev.Stat. c. 38, § 802 (1939); Cal.Pen.Code § 1168 (1941).
'2nd. The punishment—or much better—the discipline of the wrong-doer.
See also 12 Encyc. of Soc. Science, Penal Institutions 57—64 (1934).
People v. Stein, 96 Misc. 507, 161 N.Y.S. 1107; People ex rel. Barone v. Fox, 202 N.Y. 616, 96 N.E. 1126; People v. Johnson, 252 N.Y. 387, 393, 169 N.E. 619. And see Commonwealth v. Johnson, 348 Pa. 349, 35 A.2d 312. As to English procedure see 28 Crim.App.R. 89, 90—91. Also see Note, Right of Criminal Offenders to Challenge Reports Used in Determining Sentence, 49 Col.L.Rev. 567 (1949).