Opinion ID: 895240
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legislative Penalties for Similar Misconduct

Text: The final guidepost compares the exemplary damages with legislatively authorized civil sanctions. [70] In this case we need not discuss the comparable sanctions guidepost at all, as unconstitutional excessiveness is aptly demonstrated under the ratio guidepost above. [71] But we add this brief word. This factor fortifies the notion that legislatures make policy and are well positioned to define and deter undesired behavior. Accordingly, reviewing courts should accord substantial deference to legislative judgments concerning appropriate sanctions for the conduct at issue. [72] In cases where applicable civil penalties exist, this guidepost gives bad actors fair notice of what is forbidden and of potential penalties. Today's case, however, is not ordinary, given the absence of civil penalties and the presence of criminal ones. The two are incommensurate, and incarceration does not translate meaningfully to a dollar-figure fine. [73] The court of appeals looked to both civil and criminal statutes. On the criminal side, it noted the Penal Code provisions on third-degree felony theft (punishable by two to ten years imprisonment) [74] and witness tampering (punishable by six months to two years). [75] The Supreme Court in Haslip and Gore also looked to criminal penalties that could be imposed, [76] since [t]he existence of a criminal penalty does have bearing on the seriousness with which a State views the wrongful action. [77] But in State Farm the Court added this caution: When used to determine the dollar amount of the award, however, the criminal penalty has less utility. [78] The Court explained that [p]unitive damages are not a substitute for the criminal process, and the remote possibility of a criminal sanction does not automatically sustain a punitive damages award. [79] State Farm reflects the Court's evolving view of exemplary damages and stresses the limited usefulness of criminal penalties, but notably State Farm and Gore mention that legislative sanctions often take the form of double, treble, or quadruple damages. [80] Here, the criminal jury acquitted Bennett of cattle theft, but the civil jury found that he and the Corporation did commit theft of 10 or more head of cattle during a single transaction and ... the aggregate value of those cattle [was] less than $100,000.00. This finding tracks (1) the then-applicable Penal Code definition of third-degree felony theft, [81] which aside from a possible decade-long incarceration permits a fine not to exceed $10,000, [82] and (2) the felony theft exception to the statutory cap on exemplary damages. [83] On the civil side, the court of appeals emphasized the Texas Legislature's policy choice to exempt conduct constituting third-degree felony theft from the caps otherwise applicable to punitive damages awards.... [B]arring contrary constitutional impediments, the legislature has deemed such conduct so serious as to remove the state statutory limitations otherwise restricting the amount of punitive damage awards for such conduct. [84] In ordinary civil cases, Section 41.008 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code caps exemplary damages at an amount not to exceed the greater of (1) $200,000 or (2) noneconomic damages (up to $750,000) plus two times economic damages. [85] However, the Legislature makes this statutory ceiling inapplicable to conduct constituting third-degree (and higher) felony theft, like stealing cattle. The Legislature inarguably has discretion to deem certain crimes more detestable than others and thus deserving of harsher punishment. [86] But that does not prevent due process from mandating a lower award. As we emphasized in Gullo Motors, the Supreme Court requires us to look to civil penalties `imposed in comparable cases.' [87] We cannot conclude that the general $200,000 ceiling reflects the Legislature's judgment that this amount, much less a higher uncapped amount, is thus constitutionally permissible. Lifting the $200,000 cap in some cases does not demonstrate constitutional propriety in this case. Indeed, even an award well below the statutory ceiling can offend due process. [88] In sum, the comparable sanctions guidepost offers little guidancethere are no on-point civil penaltiesthough pegging punitives to the $10,000 criminal fine would produce a 1.877 ratio.