St. Pierre v. Sheriff
This text of 524 P.2d 1278 (St. Pierre v. Sheriff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
OPINION
By the Court,
An indictment returned by the Washoe County Grand Jury charged appellant with first degree murder (NRS 200.030 (2)). This appeal is from a district court order denying his habeas corpus petition for bail and the sole contention is that since first degree murder is no longer denominated as a capital [284]*284offense, we are compelled to admit him to bail because of the provisions of Nev. Const., Art. 1, § 7.1
Historically, first degree murder was one of the capital offenses enumerated in the statutes and the offense was almost universally non-bailable, when the proof was evident or the presumption great.
In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), the Supreme Court of the United States effectively proscribed the death penalty under then existing statutory provisions and many jurisdictions were soon flooded with applications for bail from those charged with crimes previously denominated “capital offenses.” Some jurisdictions resolved the issue in favor of those charged by concluding that the abolition of the death penalty eliminated capital offenses; therefore, all offenses became bailable. Eg: Ex Parte Contella, 485 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Edinger v. Metzger, 290 N.E.2d 577 (Ohio App. 1972).
When the issue reached this court we declined to accept that view and adopted the pre-Furman rationale enunciated in People v. Anderson, 493 P.2d 880 (Cal. 1972), saying: “[t]he underlying gravity of [capital] offenses endures and the determination of their gravity for the purpose of bail continues unaffected by this decision ... we hold they remain as offenses for which bail should be denied . . . when the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption thereof great.” Jones v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 175, 176, 509 P.2d 824 (1973).
In 1973, in line with at least 25 other states, our legislature specifically enumerated particular homicides as capital. See Stats, of Nev. 1973, ch. 798, § 5, p. 1803 (codified as a part of NRS 200.030).2
In exercising its prerogative to restructure capital offenses the legislature also amended the bail statute, NRS 178.484, [285]*285by including in its definition of capital offenses, any murder defined in NRS ch. 200.3 See Stats, of Nev. 1973, ch. 798, § 2.5, pp. 1802-1803.
The thrust of appellant’s argument is that NRS 178.484 (2)(b) is in conflict with the constitutional provision relating to bail.
The issue we must resolve is whether it is constitutionally permissible for the legislature to make a non-capital crime non-bailable after it has realigned capital offenses. We think not; otherwise, we would be saying that first degree murder [or any murder defined in NRS ch. 200] is a capital crime for purposes of bail, but is non-capital for purposes of punishment. Such construction is “untenable from a constitutional standpoint.” State v. Pett, 92 N.W.2d 205, 206 (Minn. 1958).
The California Supreme Court recently. reevaluated the Anderson rationale in In re Boyle, 520 P.2d 723 (Cal. 1974), after the California legislature (1) enacted a procedural statute “forbidding bail in capital cases in which the proof is evident or the presumption great . . . and (2) delineated the class [286]*286of such cases by substantive provisions imposing the death penalty for specified offenses.”
Mr. Justice Mosk, speaking for the California court, noted that the Anderson rationale [which we adopted in Jones] “was not intended to govern a situation in which the legislature acts to declare a new and different class of ‘capital offenses,’ yet that is the precise situation before us.” Boyle, supra.
The legislative prerogative to implement the bail provisions of our Constitution does not encompass inclusion of a non-capital offense as non-bailable; accordingly, we hold § 2(b) of NRS 178.484 unconstitutional. Only those persons charged with the newly designated capital offenses may now be denied bail, “when the proof is evident, or the presumption great.” Nev. Const., Art. 1, § 7.
We reverse the order of the district court and remand for the purpose of a hearing to set bail.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
524 P.2d 1278, 90 Nev. 282, 1974 Nev. LEXIS 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-pierre-v-sheriff-nev-1974.