Diamond v. Commonwealth

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Diamond v. Commonwealth

99 S.W. 232, 124 Ky. 418, 1907 Ky. LEXIS 186

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

DecidedJanuary 24, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 99 S.W. 232 (Diamond v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Diamond v. Commonwealth, 99 S.W. 232, 124 Ky. 418, 1907 Ky. LEXIS 186 (Ky. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Cheep Justice O’Rear—

Affirming.

Appellant was indicted and convicted of a felony, charged' with stealing chickens of the value of more than $2. The indictment was returned under the act of the General Assembly approved March 17, 1904, as follows:

“An act to regulate crime and fix the punishment . therefor.

“Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

“1. If any person shall steal chickens, turkeys, ducks, or other fowls of the value of $2 or more, he shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than five years.”

Acts 1904, p. 83, c. 29.

Appellant complains of this act because he insists the title does not express its subject, and is therefore in contravention of section 51 of the Constitution, which reads:

[420]*420“No law enacted by the General Assembly shall relate to more than one subject and that shall be expressed in the title.”

The title of this act is the regulation of crime by the fixing of punishment therefor. It makes that a crime and a felony which was not previously a felony, and prescribes a punishment for it. It is not essential to the validity of an act creating a felony that the title should describe the conditions under which it shall become effective, nor is it obnoxious for an act to create the.crime and prescribe the punishment, as the matter of the description of the crime and the fixing of the punishment are not two subjects. It is dealing with two features of the same subject. Both are germane to the title. Indeed, it is not possible to legislate on the subject otherwise. No penal statute could be effective that did not create the crime, if it was not one already existing at the common law, without at the same time prescribing the penalty for it. The statute in question does not, in our opinion, violate section 51 of the Constitution.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion op the Court by

Cheep Justice O’Rear—

Affirming.

Appellant was indicted and convicted of a felony, charged' with stealing chickens of the value of more than $2. The indictment was returned under the act of the General Assembly approved March 17, 1904, as follows:

“An act to regulate crime and fix the punishment . therefor.

“Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

“1. If any person shall steal chickens, turkeys, ducks, or other fowls of the value of $2 or more, he shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than five years.”

Acts 1904, p. 83, c. 29.

Appellant complains of this act because he insists the title does not express its subject, and is therefore in contravention of section 51 of the Constitution, which reads:

[420]*420“No law enacted by the General Assembly shall relate to more than one subject and that shall be expressed in the title.”

The title of this act is the regulation of crime by the fixing of punishment therefor. It makes that a crime and a felony which was not previously a felony, and prescribes a punishment for it. It is not essential to the validity of an act creating a felony that the title should describe the conditions under which it shall become effective, nor is it obnoxious for an act to create the.crime and prescribe the punishment, as the matter of the description of the crime and the fixing of the punishment are not two subjects. It is dealing with two features of the same subject. Both are germane to the title. Indeed, it is not possible to legislate on the subject otherwise. No penal statute could be effective that did not create the crime, if it was not one already existing at the common law, without at the same time prescribing the penalty for it. The statute in question does not, in our opinion, violate section 51 of the Constitution.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.W. 232, 124 Ky. 418, 1907 Ky. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diamond-v-commonwealth-kyctapp-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack