Court Opinion

ID: 9844775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:08:46.2292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:42.679386
License: Public Domain

Calhoun, Judge,
dissenting:
Respectfully, I dissent from the decision in this case. It is my view that the Court, without any clear legal duty to do so, but with devastating and far-reaching consequences, has needlessly invalidated the six felony indictments involved in this case.
Our clear legal duty to uphold constitutionality of statutes was recently reiterated in the second point of the syllabus of State ex rel. Metz v. Bailey, 152 W.Va. 53, 159 S.E.2d 673, as follows:
“When the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, every reasonable construction must be *444resorted to by the courts to sustain its validity and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the legislative act in question.”
Constitutions of various states contain provisions similar to that involved in this case relating to the requirement that the subject or object of a legislative act be stated in the title of the act. The general rule regarding the duty of courts in construing and applying such constitutional provisions is stated in 50 Am. Jur., Statutes, Section 168, pages 147-49, as follows:
“A constitutional provision requiring the subject or object of a statute to be stated in the title, should not be construed strictly, narrowly, hypercritically, or technically, but should be construed reasonably, fairly, justly, and even liberally construed, due regard being had, not only to its letter, but also to its spirit. The constitutional provision should not be so interpreted as to render it oppressive or impracticable, or to obstruct, hamper, or cripple legislation, or to promote controversy in regard to the validity of legislative enactments. On the other hand, the construction should not be so liberal as to render the constitutional provision nugatory.”
Similar legal principles are stated in 50 Am. Jur., Statutes, Section 173, pages 153-156, as follows:
“The general rule is that a statute will be upheld, as against a claim that it is in violation of a constitutional provision requiring the subject or object of the act to be expressed in tire title, where there is a substantial compliance with the constitutional requirement. The title of a statute will generally be regarded as sufficient, not only where the subject or object of the act is clearly disclosed by the title, but also where it fairly or reasonably expresses, embraces, or indicates the general subject or object, is directly or indirectly related, germane, cognate, incidental, auxiliary, or subservient thereto, and has a proper, fair, reasonable, consistent, natural, or necessary connection therewith, so that the subject matter of the statute is not foreign to that expressed in the title, and may be easily determined, or readily inferred, therefrom. Indeed, for a law to be valid, its subject or object must not be foreign to the title, but must be so expressed in its title as to give a reasonable or *445fair notice, suggestion, or indication thereof. If the provisions of the act itself cannot be fairly construed as embraced within the title of the act, then it is in conflict with the Constitution.”
The compliance by, this Court with general principles stated above was expressed in the fourth, fifth and sixth points of the syllabus of the early case of Shields and Preston v. Bennett, 8 W.Va. 74, as follows:
“The most liberal construction, favorable to the validity of legislation, which the language of these provisions admits, should be adopted.
“When the principal object of an act is expressed in the title, and the act embraces, with such principal object, other auxiliary objects, the act, if not otherwise objectionable, is valid, not only as to the principal, but likewise as to the auxiliary objects.
“Generally, the language of a title should be construed in its most comprehensive sense.”
The salutary, sensible rule of constitutional law stated above in relation to Article VI, Section 30, of the Constitution of West Virginia, and its simple requirement that no act of the legislature shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in the title of the act, has been expressed, reiterated and applied faithfully by this Court throughout the years: State ex rel. Graney v. Sims, 144 W.Va. 72, pts. 1 and 2 syl., 105 S.E.2d 886; State ex rel. McMillion v. Stahl, 141 W.Va. 233, 238-39, 89 S.E.2d 693, 698; State ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 134 W.Va. 278, 287, 58 S.E.2d 766, 772; City of Wheeling v. American Casualty Company, 131 W.Va. 584, 594-95, 48 S.E.2d 404, 410; Sypolt v. Shaffer, 130 W.Va. 310, 315-16, 43 S.E.2d 235, 238-39; Brewer v. City of Point Pleasant, 114 W.Va. 572, pts. 1, 2 and 3 syl., 172 S.E. 717; Boggess v. Johnson, 113 W.Va. 193, 167 S.E. 82; Brozka v. County Court of Brooke County, 111 W.Va. 191, 160 S.E. 914; State v. Scarbrough, 108 W.Va. 9, 150 S.E. 219; State v. Furr, 101 W.Va. 178, pts. 1 and 2 syl., 132 S.E. 504; Casto v. Upshur County High School Board, 94 W.Va. 513, 520, 119 S.E. 470, 473; State v. Haskins, 92 W.Va. 632, pts. 2 and 3 syl., 115 S.E. 720; State v. Mines, 38 W.Va. 125, pts. 10 and 11 syl., 18 S.E. 470; *446Chesapeake & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Patton, 9 W.Va. 648, 655-56. The same general principles are adhered to and applied in Virginia. Kingan v. City of Richmond, 198 Va. 820, 97 S.E.2d 11.
The title to the statute here in question, Chapter 132, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session, 1961, after referring specifically to various statutes which were repealed in order to form the basis and background of the new statute, concludes as follows: “* * *.and to amend said code by adding thereto a new chapter, designated chapter five-a, all relating to the administration and financial affairs of the state and to the department of finance and administration, its powers and duties.” (Italics supplied.)
The portion of the statute involved in this case, Section 38 of Article 3, provides that it shall be unlawful “for any person to jointly combine or collude or conspire in any way to affect the market, or price, or supply of commodities and printing obtained or to be obtained by the State under the provisions of this article,” which article deals with the Purchasing Division of the Department of Finance and Administration.
It is difficult for me to conceive how provisions of a statute could be more germane, related, auxiliary or incidental to “the administration and financial affairs of the state and to the department of finance and administration,” than Section 38 of Article 3 which, according to the language of the majority opinion, “might be termed the statute against ‘rigging’ prices and supplies or market of goods being purchased by the state.”
The legislative act in question embraces approximately thirty-seven pages in the bound volume of Acts of the Legislature. It contains four separate articles and approximately ninety-five separate sections, each designated by a number. It is inconceivable to me that any act so long and comprehensive could contain a title sufficient to refer specifically to each of the separate provisions. Hence we have the rule of reason by which this Court and other courts throughout the land have been guided in applying constitutional provisions *447dealing with the titles of acts of legislatures. That universally and uniformly applied rule of reason, in my opinion, has been mercilessly, needlessly, and flagrantly disregarded in this case.
In this day in which we discuss and consider the desirability of reform in the operation of courts and in the administration of justice, it occurs to me that this very case presented an excellent starting place for this Court to make its contribution.
I would be quite willing and disposed to regard the prayer of this prohibition proceeding with greater leniency and indulgence if this case involved even remotely any substantial rights of the accused. We are not here concerned with the sufficiency of the charges made in the indictments, with the right of the accused to a fair trial or with any of the basic rights of the accused under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States or with any similar provisions of the Constitution of West Virginia.
The six felony indictments against the accused have been nullified by the Court in this case on a technical basis relating merely to the sufficiency of the title of the act of the legislature upon which the indictments are based. As a consequence, the accused, for all time, is deprived of the right to have a court adjudication of his innocence of the grave charges made against him in the six indictments.
The sufficiency of the title of the legislative act is not tested in any different manner or by any different standard merely because the act creates certain criminal offenses and provides penalties for violation thereof. Article VI, Section 30 refers to legislative acts relating to crimes, divorce, juvenile delinquency or anything else which might be a proper subject of a legislative act.
For reasons stated in this dissenting opinion, I would deny the writ of prohibition in this case.