Court Opinion

ID: 9689128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:20:57.16533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:30.630546
License: Public Domain

MOORE, Judge
(concurring • in the result of the majority opinion and dissenting in part):
I concur in the majority opinion written by Judge Harris in reversing this case because of the error of the trial judge in overruling the demurrer to the indictment and each count thereof. The indictment was subject to said demurrer on the grounds stated in said opinion.
I concur in said majority opinion in reversing and rendering this case on the action and failure to act on the part of the trial judge as set out in said opinion and with all statements of said opinion in connection therewith.
I respectfully dissent as to that part of the majority opinion which reverses and renders this case on the basis of “so called” discriminatory prosecution.
The fact that state courts are bound by the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by the Supreme Court of the United States has been repeated so often that it requires no citation of authority. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated its interpretation of the point in question in the case of Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 in these words:
“Petitioners also claim they were denied the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Oyler stated:
‘Petitioner was discriminated against as an Habitual Criminal in that from January, 1940, to June, 1955, there were six men sentenced in the Taylor County Circuit Court who were subject to prosecution as Habitual Offenders, Petitioner was the only man thus sentenced during this period. It is a matter of record that the five men who were not prosecuted as Habitual Criminals during this period, all had three or more felony convictions and sentences as adults, and Petitioner’s former convictions were a result of Juvenile Court actions.
* * * * * sfi
‘#5. The Petitioner was discriminated against by selective use of a mandatory State Statute, in that 904 men who were known offenders throughout the State of West Virginia were not sentenced as required by the mandatory Statutes, Chapter 61, Article 11, Sections 18 and 19 of the Code. Equal Protection and Equal Justice was [sic] denied.’
“Statistical data based on prison records were appended to the petition to support the latter allegation. Crabtree in his petition included similar statistical support and alleged:
‘The said Statute are [sic] administered and applied in such a manner as to be in violation of Equal Protection and Equal Justice therefore in conflict *298with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.’
“[7] Thus petitioners’ contention is that the habitual criminal statute imposes a mandatory duty on the prosecuting authorities to seek the severer penalty against all persons coming within the statutory standards but that it is done only in a minority of cases. This, petitioners argue, denies equal protection to those persons against whom the heavier penalty is enforced. We note that it is not stated whether the failure to proceed against other three-time offenders was due to lack of knowledge of the prior offenses on the part of the prosecutors or was the result of a deliberate policy of proceeding only in a certain class of cases or against specific persons. The statistics merely show that according to penitentiary records a high percentage of those subject to the law have not been proceeded against. There is no indication that these records of previous convictions, which may not have been compiled until after the three-time offenders had reached the penitentiary, were available to the prosecutors. Hence the allegations set out no more than a failure to prosecute others because of a lack of knowledge of their prior offenses. This does not deny equal protection due petitioners under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Sanders v. Waters, 199 F.2d 317 (C.A. 10th Cir. 1952); Oregon v. Hicks, 213 Or. 619, 325 P.2d 794 (1958).
“[8] Moreover, the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation. Even though the statistics in this case might imply a policy of selective enforcement, it was not stated that the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Therefore grounds supporting a finding of a denial of equal protection were not alleged. Oregon v. Hicks, supra; cf. Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886) (by implication).”
The U. S. Supreme Court in Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497, stated the rule as follows:
“[6] The unlawful administration by state officers of a state statute fair on its face, resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination. This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or persons, cf. McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Co., 241 U.S. 79, 86, 87, 36 S.Ct. 498, 501, 60 L.Ed. 899, or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over another not to be inferred from the action itself, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373, 374, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1072, 1073, 30 L.Ed. 220. But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed, Tarrance v. State of Florida, 188 U.S. 519, 520, 23 S.Ct. 402, 403, 47 L.Ed. 572; there must be a showing of ‘clear and intentional discrimination’, Gundling v. City of Chicago, 177 U.S. 183, 186, 20 S.Ct. 633, 635, 44 L.Ed. 725; see Ah Sin v. Wittman, 198 U.S. 500, 507, 508, 25 S.Ct. 756, 758, 759, 49 L.Ed. 1142; Bailey v. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 231, 31 S.Ct. 145, 147, 55 L.Ed. 191.
“[7] The lack of any allegations in the complaint here, tending to show a purposeful discrimination between persons or classes of persons is not supplied by the opprobrious epithets ‘willful’ and ‘malicious’ applied to the Board’s failure to certify petitioner as a successful candidate, or by characterizing that failure as an unequal, unjust, and oppressive administration of the laws of Illinois. These epithets disclose nothing as to the purpose or consequence of the failure to certify, other than that petitioner has *299been deprived of the nomination and election, and therefore add nothing to the bare fact of an intentional deprivation of petitioner’s right to be certified to a nomination to which no other has been certified. Cf. United States v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 303 U.S. 239, 243, 58 S.Ct. 533, 535, 82 L.Ed. 773. So far as appears the Board’s failure to certify petitioner was unaffected by and unrelated to the certification of any other nominee. Such allegations are insufficient under our decisions to raise any issue of equal protection of the laws or to call upon a federal court to try questions of state law in order to discover a purposeful discrimination in the administration of the laws of Illinois which is not alleged. Indeed on the allegations of the complaint, the one Republican nominee certified by the Board was entitled to be certified as the nominee receiving the highest number of votes, and the Board’s failure to certify petitioner, so far as appears, was unaffected by and unrelated to the certification of the other, successful nominee. While the failure to certify petitioner for one nomination and the certification of another for a different nomination may have involved a violation of state law, we fail to see in this a denial of the equal protection of the laws more than if the Illinois statutes themselves had provided that one candidate should be certified and no other.”
No such clear and intentional discrimination is shown in the case before us. That which may have been known at the time of trial or learned from the testimony of witness at the trial is not shown to have been known at the time of the indictment. If there was any negligence (which is not shown) on the part of the prosecution to ascertain the activities and the names of all committees having anything to do with the adoption or rejection to the constitutional amendment by a vote of the people, that would fall short of showing that any selectivity that may have been made in this case “was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification” nor would not show “a purposeful discrimination”.
The majority opinion reverses this case because the indictment does ''not allege a willful failure to file a statement or to sign the advertisements. The evidence does not show that the committees who were not prosecuted willfully failed to file such a statement. They are thus not presented as persons or committees who should have been prosecuted or had violated any law. One of the groups made an effort to ascertain if the filing of such a statement was required. If that shows anything it shows there was not a willful failure. If the committees mentioned in the majority opinion were not guilty of violating the act they should not have been prosecuted. Therefore, the fact they were not prosecuted is no evidence the prosecution of the defendants was discriminatory.
It is this writer’s opinion there is no factual or legal basis to reverse and render this case on the grounds of discriminatory prosecution. Courts should proceed with great caution to reverse cases on such grounds. The effect of the majority opinion relating to discriminatory prosecution is to bring about a judicial repeal of the Corrupt Practice Act in question. Thus, leaving the people without its protection in the conduct of election. Even if the State Legislature enacted a new statute on the subject, the State would still be dependent on the help and mercy of a Federal Court for the District of Columbia or the Attorney General of the United States for the new act would have to be approved by one or the other. Federal Voter Right Act, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1973c, page 138.
Further it is unnecessary for this Court to write upon the matter of discriminatory prosecution. This issue neither denies or confesses the guilt of the defendants. If this case was reversed and rendered solely upon that ground, there would be no clear adjudication of innocence. It is the opinion of this writer that defendants legally *300are entitled to such an adjudication. In reversing and rendering this case on the action of the trial judge, the defendants have an adjudication of not guilty. The writer of this opinion concurs in that adjudication. The defendants should have received from the trial court a judgment of not guilty. Since they did not they were each denied a constitutionally fair trial. However, there was not a discriminatory prosecution of them in violation of their constitutional rights in that respect.
Because of membership in some of the appellant organizations, CATES, P. J., and TYSON and BOOKOUT, JJ., have recused themselves, and did not participate in the consideration or decision in this cause. Canon 3C, Canons of Judicial Ethics, American Bar Association.
CATES, P. J., and TYSON, J., were additionally disqualified under subsection (1) (d) (i) of Canon C of ABA Canons of Judicial Ethics (Code of Judicial Conduct), 1972.