Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

274 Ala. 383

Thompson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 17, 1963

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1963-01-17

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““If the decision in the Chancey case, supra (Chancey v. State, 170 Ala. 83 , 54 So. 522 ) is to be construed to the effect that all misdemeanors are unaffected by subdivision 14 of Sec. 104 of the Constitution, that decision is to be no longer followed. “We are clear to the conclusion that the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor cannot have a different fixed punishment in the 67 separate counties of the state. Nor could many other misdemeanors, too numerous to mention, have a different fixed punishment in each of the 67 counties of the •state.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Thompson v. State, State v. Rogers

Relies on Kendrick v. Boyd · In Re Opinion of the Justices · Chancey v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1963-01-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 1985

11 state decisions

50196319701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice.

¶1Although the Court of Appeals states that the question here considered is certified to this court under the provisions of Secs. 87 and 98, Title 13, Code of 1940, we have held that there is now no 'field of operation for said Sec. 87 and that it is no longer operative. However, we will treat the question presented as a certification under Sec. 98. See Kendrick v. Boyd, 255 Ala. 53, 51 So.2d 694.

¶2Article 4, Sec. 104(14), Constitution of Alabama 1901, is correctly set forth in the question presented by the Court of Appeals. Sec. 324, Title 62, Code 1940, is a local law. Opinion of the Justices, 244 Ala. 384, 13 So.2d 762.

¶3We agree with the unanimous opinion of the Court of Appeals that that, portion of Sec. 324, Title 62, Code 1940, providing that any person who violates the provisions of said section should be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction of said offense “may be fined not more than $500.00, and in addition thereto may be sentenced to hard labor for the county for not more than 12 months, or to a term of imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 12 months,” is unconstitutional.

¶4We are not unmindful of the case of Chancey v. State, 170 Ala. 83, 54 So. 522. In that case, the defendant was convicted of failing to do road duty under a local statute for Pike County. Sec. 10 of that Act provided:

that if any person warned who is liable to road duty fails to attend, or send an acceptable substitute, with the proper tools, agreeable to the notice; or fails faithfully to perform his duty shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than one nor more than $50.00 for each offense,

¶5The late Mr. Justice Sayre referred to the offense charged as a “petit misdemean- or,” but held that the offense charged, although designated a misdemeanor, was not a crime within the purview of Sec. 104(14), Constitution of Alabama 1901. Judge Sayre there said:

By the statute in question the failure to work the roads is made a petit misdemeanor. Both crimes and misdemeanors are defined as acts committed, or omitted, in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding them under penalty. In common usage, however, small faults and omissions are referred to as misdemeanors, while offenses of deeper dye and more atrocious character are called crimes. That the makers of the Constitution had this common usage in mind when framing subdivision 14 of section 104 is made clear by an inspection of the journal of the convention. This subdivision was reported to the convention in this form: ‘Fixing the *385punishment of crimes or misdemeanors.’ On motion the words ‘or misdemeanors’ were stricken, and, as so amended, the subdivision was adopted. Journal Cons.Con. p. 677. The act in question is unaffected by the subdivision.”

¶6If the decision in the Chancey case, supra, is to be construed to the effect that all misdemeanors are unaffected by subdivision 14 of Sec. 104 of the Constitution, that decision is to be no longer followed.

¶7We are clear to the conclusion that the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor cannot have a different fixed punishment in the 67 separate counties of the state. Nor could many other misdemeanors, too numerous to mention, have a different fixed punishment in each of the 67 counties of the state.

¶8In our opinion, that portion of Sec. 324 of Title 62, supra, fixing the punishment of those who contribute to the delinquency of a minor in Jefferson County, is in violation of Sec. 104(14) of the Constitution of Alabama 1901.

¶9Let this response be certified to the Court of Appeals.

LAWSON, SIMPSON, and MERRILL, JJ., concur.COLEMAN, J., dissents as indicated.GOODWYN, J., concurs in the dissent.PIARWOOD, J., not sitting.
/274/ala/383 · .json · Public domain