SHOENER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Shoener was indicted twice for failing to pay over county moneys—once based on a demand that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined never actually imposed criminal liability under the applicable statute, and again based on a subsequent demand. The Supreme Court held that Shoener was not twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense because the first indictment was based on a non-existent crime and therefore could not have resulted in a valid conviction, meaning he was never actually put in peril by the first prosecution.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Harlan,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
The contention that, by the judgment of the Supreme;Court of Pennsylvania, the plaintiff in error has been deprived of a right secured to. him by the Constitution of the United States must be overruled. He has not been twice placed in jeopardy for the.same offense. Upon the hearing of the case arising out of the first indictment the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, construing the statute under which the defendant was prosecuted, and looking at the undisputed facts, appearing of record, adjudged that he had'not then committed any criminal offense; •that he had not failed to pay over-moneys belonging to the county upon any demand, disregard of which subjected him to. criminal liability; consequently, it was held that no valid judgment of conviction could have been rendered against him in the first prosecution for failing to pay over the moneys in question, or any part thereof, on the particular demand shown in the record of that prosecution. These were questions of local and general law which it was the province of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to determine conclusively for the parties. They presented no question of a Federal nature.
Assuming, then, that no valid judgment could have been rendered against the accused.upon the first indictment for dig* regarding the demand upon which that indictment, was based, it necessarily follows, as held by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, that that' prosecution did not put the accused in jeopardy in respect of the particular offense specified in the last indictment. That offense was never committed until the demand of June 30, 1905 was disregarded. The defense of double jeopardy could not be sustained unless we should hold that the charge against Shoenér in the first indictment could be sustained under the statute. But we cannot so-.adjudge without disregarding altogether the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and without holding that an accused .is put in peril by a. prosecution which could not legally result in a conviction for crime. It is an established rule that one is hot put in jeopardy if the indictment under which'he is tried is so radically defective that it would not support a judgment of conviction)' and that a judgment thereon would be arrested, on motion. So where the defense is that the accused was put in jeópardy for the same offense by his trial under a former indictment, if it appears from the record of that-trial that the accused had not then or previously committed and could not possibly have committed any such crime as the one charged, and therefore that the court was without jurisdiction to have rendered any valid judgment against him—and such is the case now before us—then the accused was not, by such trial, put in jeopardy for the offense specified in the last or new in-» ' dictment.
. As it was thus correctly decided that the accused was -not, by the present indictment, put in jeopardy for the second time for the same offense, we need not go further or consider any question of a Federal nature, and the writ of error must be .dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1943)…against the laws of the State of Florida. A trial under such a void charge was without legal foundation and was not sufficient to constitute jeopardy. See 15 American Jurisprudence [*858] 49, Sec. 374. Also see Shoener v. Pennsylvania, 207 U.S. 188, 52 L. Ed. 163, 28 S. Ct. 110, Black v. State, 36 Ga. 447, 91 Am. Dec. 772, overruled on another point by Brown v. State, 109 Ga. 570, 34 S. E. 1031; Bennett v. Com. 150 Ky. 604, 150 S. W. 806, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 419; State v. Schyhart (Mo) 199 S. W. 205, citing R…
-
Twining v. State of N.J., 211 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1908)…o go further and express its opinion on an abstract question relating to the powers of the State under the Constitution. What I have suggested as to the proper course of procedure in this court is supported by our action in Shoener v. Pennsylvania, 207 U. S. 188, 195. That was a criminal case, brought here from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania — the accused, who was convicted, insisting that the proceeding against him in the state court was in violation of the clause of the Federal Constitution declaring t…
-
United States ex rel. George Hetenyi v. Wilkins, 348 F.2d 844 (2d Cir. 1965)…a like fashion in another case involving a reprosecution by a state following a hung-jury, Keerl v. State of Montana, 213 U.S. 135, 138, 29 S.Ct. 469, 53 L.Ed. 734 (1909); and perhaps Mr. Justice Harlan’s opinion in Shoener v. State of Pennsylvania, 207 U.S. 188, 195-196 (1907) (trial on second indictment after first indictment dismissed on appeal as not charging a crime), could be read as employing the same technique of avoidance, although in Shoener it was necessary to determine as an original proposition…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1890)
- Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1897)
- Howard v. Kentucky, 200 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1906)