FINLEY
v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
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.
A California statute imposing capital punishment for assault by a life-sentence prisoner was upheld against a challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court affirmed that the statute's classification distinguishing life prisoners from other convicts was not arbitrary but based on valid penological distinctions, as life prisoners faced perpetual civic death and could not receive extended sentences as additional punishment.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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.” 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Davis v. Fla. Power Co., 64 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1912)…., 220 U. S. 61; Provident Institution for Savings v. Malone, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 221 U. S. 660; Keeney as Adm’r. v. Comptroller of the State of New York, 222 U. S. 525; Finley v. People of the State of California, 222 U. S. 28; King Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 58 Fla. 292, 50 South. Rep. 509; Peninsular Industrial Ins. Co. v. State, 61 Fla. 376, 55 South. Rep. 398; Taylor v. Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co., 61 Fla. 455, 54 South. Rep. 904; Goldstein v. M…
-
State v. Knott, 119 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1935)…1, 58 L. Ed. 539; Keokee Consol. Coke Co. v. Taylor, 234 U. S. 224, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 856, 58 L. Ed. 1288; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 337, 55 L. Ed. 369; Finley v. People of State of California, 222 U. S. 28, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13, 56 L. Ed. 75; Armour & Co. v. State of North Dakota, 240 U. S. 510, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 440, 60 L. Ed. 771; Dominion Hotel v. State of Arizona, 249 U. S. 265, 39 Sup. Ct. 273, 63 L. Ed. 597; Griffith v. State of Connecticut, 218 U. S. 563, 31 Sup. Ct.…1 / 2
-
Bush v. State ex rel. Dade Cnty., 140 Fla. 277 (Fla. 1939)…is taxable at the residence of the owner. St. Louis v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 11 Wall. 423, 20 L. Ed. 102; Ayer & Lord Tie Co. v. Kentucky, 202 U. S. 409, 50 L. Ed. 1082, 26 Sup. Ct. 679; Southern Pacific v. [*298] Kentucky, 222 U. S. 63, 56 L. Ed. 96, 32 Sup. Ct. 13; Tacoma Oriental Steamship Co. v. Tallant, 51 Fed. (2d) 359. “It is the inability of vessels actually engaged in carriage of passengers, freight and mail between a port of one State and the port or ports of other States or foreign countries to acqu…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1886)
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1902)
- Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1885)
- Gulf v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1897)
- Cotting v. Kan. City Stock Yards Co. & the State of Kan., 183 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1901)