Stout v. Hancock

146 F.2d 741, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2355
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 20, 1944
DocketNo. 5304
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 146 F.2d 741 (Stout v. Hancock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stout v. Hancock, 146 F.2d 741, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2355 (4th Cir. 1944).

Opinion

PARKER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order in a habeas corpus proceeding directing Colonel Stout, the Commanding Officer of the Greenville Army Air Base, to release from custody one Hancock, who had been convicted by general court-martial of the crime of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. The ground of the order releasing Hancock was that only six of the eight members of the general court-martial had voted for his conviction, the court holding that this amounted to an acquittal. The only question in the case is whether a unanimous verdict of the court-martial is required in a case where the death penalty may be imposed but is not mandatory, since it is not mandatory under the 92nd Article of War, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1564, prescribing the punishment for rape.

The article of war relating to the vote required for convictions or sentences is the 43rd article, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1514, which is as follows: “Art. 43. Death sentence; when lawful. No person shall, by general court-martial, be convicted of an offense for which the death penalty is made mandatory by law, nor sentenced to suffer death, except by the concurrence of all the members of said court-martial present at the time the vote is taken, and for an offense in these articles expressly made punishable by death; nor sentenced to life imprisonment,-nor to confinement for more [742]*742than ten years, except by the concurrence of three-fourths of all of the members present at the time the vote is taken. All other convictions and sentences, whether by general or special court-martial, may be determined by a two-thirds vote of those members present at the time the vote is taken. All other questions shall be determined by a majority vote.”

The 92nd article of war is only one of a number of articles defining crimes for which the death penalty may be imposed. Under that article murder or rape must be punished by either death or life imprisonment. Eleven other sections, 58, 59, 64, 66, 67, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81 and 86, 10 U.S. C.A. §§ 1530, 1531, 1536, 1538, 1539, 1547-1550, 1553, 1558, which relate to such crimes as desertion in war time, mutiny, misbehavior before the enemy, improper use of countersign, etc., provide for the punishment of death or such other punishment as the court-martial may direct. The 43rd article of war applies to convictions and sentences under all of these sections; and it is not reasonable to assume that Congress intended to require the unanimous vote of a court-martial for the enforcement of so many provisions essential to military discipline in war time but for the infraction of which the death penalty, while permissive, is seldom, if ever, imposed. Only under article 82, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1554, relating to spies, is the death sentence now made mandatory.

If we look to the language of article 43, it is clear that the concurrence of all of the members of the court-martial is required for conviction only in cases “for which the death penalty is made mandatory.” This is in harmony with the policy not to permit death to be inflicted except by unanimous vote of the court-martial, since the death penalty would follow as a matter of course a conviction of a crime for which the death penalty is made mandatory. The clause thought by the court below to require a unanimous vote where the death sentence is merely permissive and not mandatory, i. e. “and for an offense in these articles expressly made punishable by death”, is a part of the prepositional phrase introduced by the preposition “except”; and its office is to make clear that the death penalty may not be imposed by a court-martial except for an offense expressly made punishable by death in the articles of war, and thus to preclude the possibility of the imposition of the death penalty for offenses where the punishment is left in the discretion of the court-martial, as in the case of the numerous serious crimes denounced in the 93rd article, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1565, some of which are punished by death under state laws.

That this is the correct interpretation is established by the history of the article particularly with respect to the clause last quoted. That clause first appeared in article LI of the articles of war of 1775 in the following form: “That no persons shall be sentenced by a court-martial to suffer death, except in the cases mentioned in the foregoing articles”. (Italics supplied.)

Its purpose here was clearly to limit the imposition of the death penalty to cases made punishable by death in the articles of war. It appeared in the same form in the articles of war of 1776 and 1786. Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents, 2d Ed. Reprint, pp. 957, 970, 974. At that time, action in courts-martial was by majority vote, whether with respect to convictions or sentences, and notwithstanding that the death penalty might be imposed.

In 1806, the articles of war were amended to require a two-thirds vote to inflict the death penalty; and the clause in question was retained to prevent the infliction of that penalty in cases other than those made punishable by death in the articles of war. Article 87 of the articles of war of 1806, 2 Stat. 369; Winthrop supra, 984, provided: “No person shall be sentenced to suffer death, but by the concurrence of two thirds of the members of a general court martial, nor except in the cases herein expressly mentioned; * * *.” In 1874 this article was revised and appeared as article 96 in the following form: “No person shall be sentenced to suffer death, except by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of a general court-martial, and in the cases herein expressly mentioned.” See Winthrop, supra, p. 974. In 1916 the article was again amended so as to require a two-thirds vote to convict where the death penalty was mandatory, for the express purpose of requiring a two-thirds vote where the death penalty would follow conviction as a matter of law;1 and the clause in question was carried for[743]*743ward for the original purpose of confining the death penalty to crimes made punishable by death in the articles of war. It appeared as article 43, as follows, 39 Stat. 657: “Art. 43. Death sentence — when lawful. — No person shall, by general court-martial, be convicted of an offense for which the death penalty is made mandatory by law, nor sentenced to suffer.death, except by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of said court-martial and for an offense in these articles expressly made punishable by death. All other convictions and sentences, whether by general or special court-martial, may be determined by a majority of the members present.”

There was no question in any one’s mind, apparently, as to what this language in the articles of war of 1916 meant. The Manual for Courts-Martial for 1917, submitted to Congress pursuant to the 38th Article of War of 1916, 39 Stat. 656, thus construes it in paragraphs 295 and 346:

“295. Majority Necessary to Convict— Exception. — All convictions, whether by general or special court-martial, may be determined by a majority of the members present, except that no person shall by general court-martial be convicted of an offense for which the death penalty is made mandatory by law, unless by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of said court-martial. Where the death penalty is not mandatory but is discretionary a conviction may be determined by a majority vote, but two-thirds of the members must concur in the death penalty before it can be imposed. (A.W. 43).”
“346. • Death Penalty.

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

Related

Mendrano v. Smith
797 F.2d 1538 (Tenth Circuit, 1986)
United States v. Morphis
7 C.M.A. 748 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1957)
United States v. Garcia
5 C.M.A. 88 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1954)
Anderson v. Hunter
177 F.2d 770 (Tenth Circuit, 1949)
McClellan v. Humphrey
83 F. Supp. 510 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1949)
Brown v. Hiatt
81 F. Supp. 647 (N.D. Georgia, 1948)
Ex parte Campo
71 F. Supp. 543 (S.D. New York, 1947)
Randle v. Sanford
79 F. Supp. 585 (N.D. Georgia, 1946)
Thompson v. Sanford
79 F. Supp. 584 (N.D. Georgia, 1946)
Ex parte Besherse
63 F. Supp. 997 (D. Montana, 1945)
Hurse v. Caffey
59 F. Supp. 363 (N.D. Texas, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 F.2d 741, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stout-v-hancock-ca4-1944.