RANKIN
v.
THE STATE
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 prisoner challenged a Tennessee court's dismissal of a special plea in bar in a capital case, but the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction because the judgment was not final, as the defendant remained entitled to plead to the merits and have the case tried before any conviction could be entered. The Court held that under the Judiciary Act, it could only review final judgments from state courts, and a judgment allowing a defendant to plead over to the general issue in a criminal case did not constitute a final judgment capable of review.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.
The difficulty with the case, as brought before us, is that the judgment was not a final one in the case. This court, under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, can only take cognizance of final judgments of the State courts. And although the court has been liberal in its construction of the statute as to what judgments are final, yet the judgment in this case cannot be deemed such by any reasonable stretch of construction. It is a rule in criminal law in favorem, vitce, in capital cases, that when a special plea in bar is found against the prisoner, either upon issue tried by a jury, -or upon a point of law decided by the court, he shall not be concluded or convicted thereon, but shall have judgment of respondeat ouster, and may plead over to the felony the general issue, not guilty.* And this is the effect of the-judgment of reversal rendered by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in this case; so that in no sense can that judgment be deemed a final one. The case must go back and be tried upon its merits, and final judgment must be rendered before this' court can take jurisdiction. If after that it should be brought here for review, we can then examine the defendant’s plea and decide upon its sufficiency.
Writ op error dismissed.
*
4 Blackstone’s Commentaries, 338.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1910)…ce placed in jeopardy of life and limb for the same offense, yet the overruling of a plea of former.conviction or acquittal has never been held, so far as we know, to give a right of review before final judgment. ,In the case of Rankin v. The State, 11 Wall. 380, an attempt was made to bring .to this court a judgment of a stat'e court upon a plea in bar of former conviction in a capital cáse. But this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Bradley, said:. “It.is a rule in criminal law in favorem vitae, in capital…
-
United States v. Alessi, 544 F.2d 1139 (2d Cir. 1976)…ake our own analysis but not now to challenge prior precedent in this court. Such an analysis is particularly desirable because the Government has recently called to our attention two Supreme Court decisions, Rankin v. State, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 380, 20 L.Ed. 175 (1870), and Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423, 433, 30 S.Ct. 539, 54 L.Ed. 821 (1910), seemingly favorable to it, only the latter of which it cited in Becker-man, and there only in summary fashion, and neither of which was cited to the [*1144] Fo…
-
United States v. Young, 544 F.2d 415 (9th Cir. 1976)…te tribunal.” Cobbledick, supra, 309 U.S. at 325-326, 60 S.Ct. at 541. Moreover, denying interlocutory review of appellant’s double jeopardy claim is consistent with early opinions from the Supreme Court. In Rankin v. State, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 380, 20 L.Ed. 175 (1870), the Court held that a state court’s rejection of defendant’s plea of a prior acquittal for the same offense was not a final judgment and, thus, not appealable. And in Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423, 30 S.Ct. 539, 54 L.Ed. 821 (1910), t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence