Summary
stating that the court may not change the laws enacted by the legislature
Summary of this case from Scoggins v. Unigard Insurance CompanyOpinion
No. 20505.
Decided June 22, 1964.
From a judgment and sentence for murder in the first degree, the defendant brings error.
Reversed.
1. STATUTES — Homicide — Construction — Jury — Verdict — Penalty. C.R.S. '53, 40-2-20, which provides that the killing being proved the burden of proving circumstances of mitigation will devolve on accused, must be construed in connection with C.R.S. '53, 40-2-3, which provides that jury shall designate by its verdict the degree of murder and shall fix the penalty if murder is of first degree.
2. Homicide — Meaning — Jury — Penalty. The clear meaning and mandate of C.R.S. '53, 40-2-3 is that a jury selected pursuant to law shall hear the homicide case, and that jury, if it determines the defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree, shall fix the penalty.
3. HOMICIDE — Penalty — Mitigation — Relevancy. In determining what penalty shall be imposed for first degree murder, circumstances of mitigation have relevance.
4. Guilt — Penalty — Unitary Action — Verdict. Resolution of guilt issue and extent of punishment must be a unitary action on part of jury that together they form the verdict.
5. Trial Court — Jury — Verdict — Penalty. It is the mandatory duty of trial court, without request, to instruct jury that should they return a verdict of guilty of first degree murder it becomes their duty to designate the punishment to be inflicted, and failure so to instruct jury on matter of punishment makes whatever instructions given incomplete and invalidates verdict which fails to fix penalty.
6. Guilt — Penalty — Verdict — Evidence — Admissibility. Guilt and punishment are so definitely integrants of a verdict in first degree murder case that courts, in order to arrive at a complete verdict, should admit in evidence material relevant to the question of punishment, i.e., matters in aggravation and mitigation, whether it applies to the issue of guilt or has relation only to the degree of culpability.
7. JURY — Homicide — Qualification — Penalty. In qualifying jurors for service in first degree murder cases they must be willing to exercise their discretion in fixing the penalty to be imposed should they find defendant guilty of murder in first degree.
8. COURTS — Legislation. The Supreme Court cannot change law enacted by legislature.
9. HOMICIDE — Evidence — Mitigation — New Trial — Statutes — Guilt — Penalty. Where sentence of death for first degree murder was reversed because defendant had been foreclosed from introducing in evidence certain matters which a jury might have considered mitigating, and case was remanded for new trial, '53, 40-2-3 required retrial of issue of guilt as well as submitting to same jury question of penalty to be imposed.
10. COURTS — Legislation — Amendment. Supreme Court is powerless to amend legislative act.
11. Legislative Intent — Words and Phrases — Plain Meaning. Courts will not depart from plain meaning of words in search of a legislative intention the words themselves do not plainly and definitely express.
12. Legislative Intent — Words and Phrases — General Assembly. Courts may not assume a legislative intent which would vary words used by general assembly.
Error to the District Court of Otero County, Hon. William L. Gobin, Judge.
Mrs. ELIZABETH L. GUYTON, Messrs. THULEMEYER and STEWART, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. DUKE W. DUNBAR, Attorney General, Mr. FRANK E. HICKEY, Deputy, Mr. JOHN E. BUSH, Assistant, for defendant in error.
JONES is here by writ of error, seeking to have reversed the judgment and sentence entered on the verdict of the jury fixing his penalty at death for the murder of one Powell. As the basis for reversal, he asserts that the trial court committed prejudicial error in submitting to the jury the sole question of the punishment to be imposed.
After we had reversed the case of which this is the sequel ( Jones v. People, 146 Colo. 40, 360 P.2d 686), the trial court determined that the issue of guilt need not be retried and that only the question of the penalty need be resolved by the jury. We had reversed the sentence of death originally imposed because Jones had been foreclosed from introducing in evidence certain matters which a jury might have considered mitigating and, as a result, might have been moved to impose a life sentence had this testimony been admitted.
Powell was killed by Jones while the latter was perpetrating a robbery. On the former writ of error ( Jones v. People, supra), we stated that the proof of the robbery and the homicide had been established — in other words, that a felony murder had been committed. At the conclusion of our opinion, we said that "the judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered."
Apparently the trial court felt that the admission of testimony which may have been mitigating could not have reduced the offense below murder in the first degree and that its only effect could be upon the extent of punishment. As a sequitur, the trial court held that there was no necessity to retry the issue of guilt and that the trial should be limited merely to submitting to the jury for determination the question whether Jones should be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment.
Six errors are assigned as grounds for reversal. We need note only assignments 1, 5, and 6, since they in effect question the authority of the court to limit the second trial to the issue of the penalty to be imposed.
C.R.S. '53, 40-2-1 et seq., defines homicide and its modes of commission. C.R.S. '53, 40-2-20, must be construed in connection with the section relating to murder. Kent v. People, 8 Colo. 563, 9 Pac. 852. The latter section provides that the "killing being proved, the burden of providing circumstances of mitigation * * * will devolve on the accused . . ."
Thus, the latter section must be construed with C.R.S. '53, 40-2-3, part of which reads as follows:
"The jury before which any person indicted for murder shall be tried, shall, if it find such person guilty thereof, designate by its verdict whether it be murder of the first or second degree, and if murder of the first degree, the jury shall in its verdict fix the penalty to be suffered by the person so convicted, either at imprisonment for life at hard labor in the penitentiary, or at death; and the court shall thereupon give sentence accordingly."
[2, 3] A jury selected pursuant to law shall hear the case, and that jury, if it determines the defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree, shall fix the penalty. This is the clear meaning and mandate of the statute. Demato v. People, 49 Colo. 147, 111 Pac. 703, 35 L.R.A.N.S. 621, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 783; Shank v. People, 79 Colo. 576, 247 Pac. 559. In determining what penalty shall be imposed, circumstances of mitigation have relevance, Jones v. People, supra; Shank v. People, supra.
Most of the states of the Union have statutes containing language similar to C.R.S. '53, 40-2-3, quoted above. Under varying circumstances some of them have had to decide questions pointing to the answer which should be made in this case. From these decisions we learn that the resolution of the issue of guilt and the extent punishment must be a unitary action on the part of the jury, that together they form the verdict.
Thus, the problem has arisen under a statute like ours where the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree but failed to asses the penalty. Was there a verdict?
Considering a former statute, bearing a resemblance to ours, the Supreme Court of California, in the case of People v. Hall, 199 Cal. 451, 249 Pac. 859, declared:
"From a consideration of our decisions it appears to be the settled law of this state that in the trial on a charge of murder it is first incumbent upon the jury to determine the guilty or innocence of the accused. If he be found guilty of murder in the first degree, it is then incumbent on the jury to fix the penalty. * * * Under the law, the verdict in such a case must be the result of the unanimous agreement of the jurors, and the verdict is incomplete unless, as returned, it embraces the two necessary constitutent elements: First, a finding that the accused is guilty of murder in the first degree: and, secondly, legal evidence that the jury has fixed the penalty in the exercise of its discretion."
Acting under its former statute, New York came to the same conclusion in the case of People v. Hicks, 287 N.Y. 165, 38 N.E.2d 482:
"By providing that a jury 'finding a person guilty of murder in the first degree' (in cases of felony murder) ' may, as a part of its verdict, recommend that the defendant be imprisoned for the term of his natural life,' the Legislature has plainly said that the jury must determine two matters: First, whether the accused is guilty of the crime charged; second, whether the sentence shall be death or whether the trial judge may pronounce a sentence of life imprisonment. Both questions must be determined by the jury and the jury's answer to both questions must be embodied in its verdict. * * * [E]ach juror should know that he is one of the twelve judges who shall decide what the verdict shall be in all its parts. Until the twelve judges have agreed on every part of the verdict, they have not agreed on any verdict."
Whenever other courts have been confronted with the same problem, they have ruled that a verdict of guilty which does not specify the punishment is incomplete and its acceptance by trial court constitutes error. Smith v. State, 23 Ala. App. 72, 121 So. 692; State v. Christensen, 166 Kan. 153, 199 P.2d 475; Davis v. State, 51 Okla. Crim. 386, 1 P.2d 824; Mays v. State, 143 Tenn. 443, 226 S.W. 233. "[I]f the jury does not determine the penalty, upon returning a verdict of murder in the first degree, there is no one to determine it." State v. Christensen, supra.
It is the mandatory duty of the trial court, without request, to instruct the jury that, should they return a verdict of guilty, it becomes their duty to designate the punishment to be inflicted, and the failure so to instruct the jury on the matter of punishment makes whatever instructions are given incomplete, and invalidates the verdict which fails to fix the penalty. State v. Loveless, 139 W.Va. 454, 80 S.E.2d 442.
Guilt and punishment are so definitely integrants of a verdict in a first degree murder case that courts, in order to arrive at a complete verdict, should admit in evidence material relevant to the question of punishment, i.e., matters in aggravation and mitigation, whether it applies to the issue of guilt or has relation only to the degree of culpability. Fields v. State, 47 Ala. 603; Fletcher v. People, 117 Ill. 184, 7 N.E. 80; Commonwealth v. Stabinsky, 313 Pa. 231, 169 Atl. 439.
In qualifying jurors for service in first degree murder cases, they must be willing to exercise their discretion in fixing the penalty to be imposed, should they find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree. In so holding, this Court said in Demato v. People, supra:
"The law-making power of the state, namely, the general assembly, has provided that capital punishment may be inflicted for murder in the first degree, when the jury finding such verdict so determines, or life imprisonment, in the discretion of the jury. In other words, under the law, it is the bounden duty of the jury convicting one of the crime of murder in the first degree to exercise their discretion in fixing the penalty to be imposed." (Emphasis supplied.)
At one time most of the states had statutory language very similar to ours. In recent years California, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania have adopted statutes in which capital cases are tried under what has designated as a two-trial or split-verdict system. The Two-Trial System in Capital Cases, by Togman, 39 N.Y.U. L. Rev. No. 1, January 1964, p. 50. That the legislatures of these four states deemed it necessary to adopt legislation permitting the trial of the issue of guilt first and the question of penalty second is persuasive of the fact that, prior to such enactment, this could not be done.
[8-10] This Court was without power to change the law thus enacted by the legislature, and when remanding the case for a new trial, necessarily required a retrial of the issue of guilt as well as submitting to the same jury the question of the penalty to be imposed. To justify the action of the trial court in this case would result in judicial amendment of a legislative act; this we are powerless to accomplish. Farmers' Irr. Co. v. Kamm, 55 Colo. 440, 135 Pac. 766.
[11, 12] May the Court announce a legislative intent which is inconsistent with the plain and literal meaning of the statute? "[C]ourts will not depart from the plain meaning of words in search of a legislative intention the words themselves do not plainly and definitely express . . ." People v. Mooney, 87 Colo. 567, 290 Pac. 271; Isaak v. Perry, 118 Colo. 93, 193 P.2d 269. Courts may not assume a legislative intent which would vary the words used by the general assembly. People v. Horkans, 109 Colo. 177, 123 P.2d 824.
For the reasons herein set forth, the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial of all issues in this case. So ordered.
MR. JUSTICE MOORE and MR. JUSTICE PRINGLE dissent.