Finley v. California

222 U.S. 28, 32 S. Ct. 13, 56 L. Ed. 75, 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1864
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 6, 1911
Docket15
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 222 U.S. 28 (Finley v. California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Finley v. California, 222 U.S. 28, 32 S. Ct. 13, 56 L. Ed. 75, 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1864 (1911).

Opinion

Memorandum opinion, by direction of the court,

by Mr. Justice McKenna.

Section 246 of the Penal Code of the State of California provides as follows: “Every person- undergoing a life sentence in a state prison of this State, who, with malice aforethought, commits an assault upon the person- of another with a deadly weapon or instrument, or by any means or force likely to produce great bodily injury, is' punishable with death.”

*31 Plaintiff in error was indicted under this section, tried, found guilty and the death penalty imposed. To the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State affirming the sentence against him he prosecutes this writ of error and urges as ground thereof that § 246 is repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in that it denies to him thé equal protection of the laws because it provides an exceptional punishment for life prisoners.

The Supreme Court sustained the law on the ground that there was a proper basis for classification between convicts serving life sentences in the- state prison, as defendant was when he committed the crime for which he was indicted and found guilty, and convicts serving lesser terms.

It is elementary that the contention is to be tested by considering whether there is a basis for the classification made »by the statute. Applying that test we see no error in the ruling. As said by Mr. Justice Henshaw, delivering the opinion of the court, “The classification [of the statute] in question is not arbitrary but is based upon valid reasons and distinctions.” And pointing out the distinction between life prisoners and other convicts, .he said that “The ‘life termers,’ as has been said, while within the prison walls, constitute a class by themselves, a class recognized as such by penologists the world over. Their situation is legally different. Their civic death is perpetual.” Manifestly there could be no extension of the term of imprisonment as a punishment for crimes they might commit, and whatever other punishment should be imposed was for the legislature to determine. The power of classification which the law-making power possesses has been illustrated by many cases which need not be cited. They demonstrate that the legislature of California did pot transcend its power in the enactment of § 246.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Secrest
331 N.W.2d 580 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1983)
Swindler v. State
569 S.W.2d 120 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1978)
People v. Gardner
56 Cal. App. 3d 91 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
Williams v. State
1975 OK CR 171 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1975)
People v. Noah
487 P.2d 1009 (California Supreme Court, 1971)
State v. Holland
161 N.W.2d 862 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1968)
Malloroy v. State
435 P.2d 254 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1967)
State v. King
149 N.W.2d 509 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1967)
People v. Dorado
398 P.2d 361 (California Supreme Court, 1965)
Hinrichs v. First Judicial District Court
283 P.2d 614 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1955)
Mahoney v. Parole Bd. of New Jersey
90 A.2d 8 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1952)
Ex Parte Wells
99 F. Supp. 320 (N.D. California, 1951)
In Re Wells
221 P.2d 947 (California Supreme Court, 1950)
People v. Wells
202 P.2d 53 (California Supreme Court, 1949)
The People v. Nicholson
82 N.E.2d 656 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1948)
Oyama v. California
332 U.S. 633 (Supreme Court, 1947)
In Re Quinn
25 Cal. 2d 799 (California Supreme Court, 1945)
State Ex Inf. McKittrick v. Kirby
163 S.W.2d 990 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1942)
Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Williamson
316 U.S. 535 (Supreme Court, 1942)
Pennsylvania Ex Rel. Sullivan v. Ashe
302 U.S. 51 (Supreme Court, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 U.S. 28, 32 S. Ct. 13, 56 L. Ed. 75, 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finley-v-california-scotus-1911.