Court Opinion

ID: 9447052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:24:02.23875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:52.841695
License: Public Domain

HASTINGS, Chief Judge
(concurring).
I concur in Judge CASTLE’S opinion holding that imprisonment under the Indiana Habitual Criminal Act1 is “punishment for crime" under the Thirteenth Amendment.
It is appropriate to analyze this statute in terms of an essential element of a criminal conviction, i. e., the conduct of the defendant charged with a crime.2
The law of crimes punishes a person for his proscribed conduct. In most instances the conduct is intentional, although certain statutes impose strict liability for “public policy” crimes.3 But in either case, punishment is levied because of the prisoner’s conduct.
*297The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” The issue here is whether the Indiana Habitual Criminal Act is a violation of this constitutional restriction, i. e., whether or not the sentence of life imprisonment issued under this statute is imposed for criminal conduct.
The Indiana Habitual Criminal Act requires the commission and conviction of a third felony. Commission of a third felony, with a record of two prior convictions, is the conduct upon which the life imprisonment is based.4
The fact that Indiana’s statute provides procedurally (§ 9-2208) for an orderly and logical progression in establishing that the defendant’s conduct was that proscribed cannot detract from the fact that the penalty is for criminal conduct. Indiana’s procedure requires the allegation and description of the two prior convictions and incarcerations and the allegation of a third felony. If the jury finds the defendant guilty of the third felony and that the allegation regarding the two prior convictions are true, after sentencing for the third felony, the court is instructed to sentence the prisoner to life imprisonment.
To describe this process as punishment for a “condition” or “state” or a “status” or “circumstance” of habitual criminality (precipitated by the commission and conviction of three prior felonies) beclouds the fact that this statute provides for conviction for the criminal conduct of committing a third felony with a record of two prior criminal convictions. This being so, it cannot violate the Thirteenth Amendment.

. Bums’ Indiana Statutes 1956 Replacement §§ 9-2207 and 9-2208.

. See Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law (1947) 11, 14, and 255. See also Hall, Studies in Jurisprudence and Criminal Theory (1958) 158-159. Cf. 14 Am.Jur. 786 and 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 37, p. 95.

. See, for example, United States v. Balint, 1922, 258 U.S. 250, 42 S.Ct. 301, 66 L.Ed. 604 (sale of narcotics); State v. Kelly, 1896, 54 Ohio St. 166, 43 N.E. 163 (sale of adulterated food); Commonwealth v. Mixer, 1910, 207 Mass. 141, 93 N.E. 249, 31 L.R.A.,N.S., 467 (transportation of intoxicating liquor). For a general discussion of strict liability, see Hall, General Principles of Criminal Law, ch. 10 (1947).

. Cf. the analysis of habitual criminal statutes under attack on the grounds of ex post facto. In rejecting this charge, the courts focus upon the fact the statute punishes for the conduct of the sub sequent offense. See Cross v. State, 1928, 96 Fla. 768, 119 So. 380 and the many eases cited in annotations on this problem in 58 A.L.R. 20, 82 A.L.R. 345, 116 A.L.R. 209, and 132 A.L.R. 91.