Beazell v. Ohio et al.; Chatfield v. Ohio et al.
269 U.S. 167 (1925)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislative change to the mode of a criminal trial, such as requiring joint trials instead of separate ones, does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution if it does not deprive the accused of a substantial right or a previously available defense.
Facts:
- On February 13, 1923, Beazell and others allegedly committed the crime of embezzlement in Ohio.
- At the time of the alleged offense, Ohio law granted any person jointly indicted for a felony the absolute right to a separate trial upon request.
- In April 1923, after the alleged crime but before any indictment, the Ohio legislature amended the law.
- The new law mandated that individuals jointly indicted for a felony (except capital offenses) shall be tried jointly, unless a court orders a separate trial for good cause.
- The legislature made this new procedural rule applicable to offenses committed before its enactment.
Procedural Posture:
- Beazell and others (plaintiffs in error) were jointly indicted for embezzlement in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio, a state trial court.
- The defendants severally moved for separate trials, arguing the new Ohio law was an unconstitutional ex post facto law as applied to them.
- The trial court denied the motions.
- The defendants were tried jointly, convicted, and sentenced.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the convictions, upholding the constitutionality of the statute.
- The defendants then sought review from the United States Supreme Court via a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law, which retroactively alters a rule of criminal procedure from a defendant's absolute right to a separate trial to a default of joint trial subject to judicial discretion, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stone
No, the state law does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws applies to statutes that punish an act that was innocent when committed, increase the punishment for a crime after its commission, or deprive a defendant of a defense that was legally available at the time of the act. The Ohio statute at issue does none of these; it affects only the manner and mode of the trial. It does not alter the legal definition of the offense, the punishment, the quantum of proof required, or any available defense. While some procedural changes can be so harsh and arbitrary as to be unconstitutional, this is not one of them. Statutory changes to the mode of trial or rules of evidence that do not deprive the accused of a substantial right and operate only in a limited, unsubstantial manner to their disadvantage are permissible. This procedural change is a matter of legislative control over remedies and does not infringe upon the substantial personal rights the Ex Post Facto Clause was designed to protect.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the distinction between substantive and procedural changes under the Ex Post Facto Clause. It establishes that retroactive application of procedural laws is generally permissible unless the change negatively impacts a defendant's 'substantial personal rights' in a 'harsh and arbitrary manner.' By framing the distinction as one of 'degree,' the Court granted legislatures more flexibility to reform court procedures without constitutional challenge. This decision solidifies the principle that not every change that disadvantages a defendant is unconstitutional, thereby narrowing the scope of the Ex Post Facto Clause's application to procedural matters.
Unlock the full brief for Beazell v. Ohio et al.; Chatfield v. Ohio et al.