Document: 382 U.S. 399 86 S.Ct. 518 15 L.Ed.2d 447 Jay GIACCIO, Appellant,v.STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 47. Argued Dec. 6, 1965. Decided Jan. 19, 1966. Peter Hearn, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. John S. Halsted, West Chester, appellee. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Appellant Giaccio was indicted by a Pennsylvania grand jury and charged with two violations state statute which makes it misdemeanor to wantonly point or discharge firearm at any other person.1 In trial before judge appellant's defense that he had discharged starter pistol only fired blanks. The returned verdict not guilty on each charge, but acting pursuant instructions court given under authority 1860, assessed against appellant costs one charges (amounting $230.95). Act set out below,2 provides among things that: 2 '* * in all cases acquittals petit indictments (offenses than felonies), trying same shall determine, their verdict, whether county, prosecutor, defendant pay whenever determine as aforesaid, costs, said determination be made forthwith pass sentence effect, order him committed jail county until are paid, unless give security within ten days.' 3 timely objections validity this several grounds,3 including an objection is unconstitutionally vague violation Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause because authorizes juries assess acquitted defendants, threat imprisonment without prescribing definite standards govern jury's determination. held 1860 void vagueness due process, aside imposing appellant, vacated 'sentence imposed upon Defendant (10) days stand complied therewith.'4 Superior Court Pennsylvania, dissenting, reversed closing its way: 4 'We can find no reason would justify our holding (the Act) unconstitutional. 5 'Order reversed, reinstated.'5 6 State Supreme Court, again agreed affirmed judgment.6 This left subject judgment 'sentence' enforce payment. We noted jurisdiction consider question raised concerning absence proper Act. 381 923, 85 1558, 14 682. agree dissenting judges appellate courts below invalid sufficient enable defendants protect themselves arbitrary discriminatory impositions costs. 7 1. Courts rested largely declaration 'is penal statute' simply machinery collection 'civil character' analogous civil 'not penalty rather compensation litigant expenses. *' But admission analogy between here does go far towards settling constitutional us. Whatever label Act, there doubt procedure depriving his liberty property. Both property specifically protected Amendment deprivation meet protection avoided simple chooses fasten conduct statute. So labeled 'penal' must challenge vague. 8 2. It established law fails requirements if so standardless leaves public uncertain prohibits jurors free decide, legally fixed standards, what prohibited particular case. See, e.g., Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 451, 59 618, 83 L.Ed. 888; Baggett Bullitt, 377 360, 84 1316, 12 377. contains all, nor place conditions kind power impose who has been found crime him. single condition, limitation contingency says 'shall costs' whereupon told (defendant) county' remain either pays gives Certainly basic purposes always person having Government burdens except accordance valid laws land. Implicit safeguard premise carries understandable meaning legal enforce. written even begin requirement. 9 3. contends have originally written, subsequent interpretations provided guides cure former deficiencies. do agree. All so-called court-created still leave such broad unlimited make determinations crucial issue own notions should instead is. decisions from time expressly, least implied, may they conduct, though unlawful, 'reprehensible some respect,' 'improper,' outrageous 'morality justice,' reprehensible enough criminal conviction sufficiently deserve equal distribution 'his innocence doubtful.'7 case instructed might prosecution charged, 'he misconduct less offense nevertheless result required short (and) rise prosecution.' 10 possibly court's charge comes nearer giving guide those preceded it, falls standard process requires. At best 'some misconduct' him, authorized saddle State's unsuccessful prosecution. difficult impossible prepare general abstract 'misconduct,' conduct.' If used forfeitures, punishments judgments loose unlimiting terms certainly cause fail measure up Clause. And these more effective standing alone vagueness. 11 hold constitutionally both explained courts.8 remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. Reversed remanded. 13 STEWART, concurring. I concur Court's cannot squared Amendment, reasons somewhat different relies. seems me that, despite disclaimer,* much reasoning serves cast grave settled practice many States unguided discretion nature degree punishment convicted offense. Though serious questions about wisdom practice, constitutionality quite matter. present allows punish after finding guilty. That, think, violates most rudimentary concept law. FORTAS, 16 my opinion, permit whom charged. June 24, 1939, Pub.L. 872, § 716, Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 18, 4716. March 31, 427, 62, 1222, provides: 'In prosecutions, felony excepted, bill indictment ignoramus, returning decide certify prosecutor prosecution; offenses apportioned defendant, proportions; jury, petit, determining, direct portion thereof, name return verdict; One Equal Protection discriminates greater them involving summary offenses. reach question. 30 Pa.Dist. & C.O.R.2d 463 (Q.S. 1963). 202 Pa.Super. 294, 310, 196 A.2d 189, 197. 415 Pa. 139, 55. foregoing quotations appear number Commonwealth Tilghman, R. 127; Baldwin Commonwealth, 26 171; Daly, 527 (Q.S.Clearfield); case, 189. we intend whatever fix prescribed limits. See n. 8, ante.

Category: 3