Featherstone v. People
1901 Ill. LEXIS 2615, 194 Ill. 325, 62 N.E. 684 (1901)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute that establishes a system for parole and indeterminate sentencing does not impliedly repeal a prior statute that sets a specific, enhanced punishment for habitual criminals, as the former relates to the manner of sentencing while the latter defines the substantive penalty for the crime.
Facts:
- Randolph Graden was approached by one Davis, a confederate of Harry Featherstone, who lured him to see a supposed train wreck.
- On the way, they encountered another confederate, Law, operating a shell game. Graden was induced to pull out $50 from his pocket.
- Davis immediately grabbed Graden's money and handed it to Law.
- As Graden attempted to recover his money, Featherstone rushed up from behind, presented a star with the words 'City Police,' drew a revolver, and declared Graden under arrest for gambling.
- While Featherstone detained Graden, Law and Davis fled with the money. Featherstone then threatened Graden and also fled.
- Harry Featherstone had a prior conviction for burglary from 1891, for which he had served a term in the penitentiary.
- After being arrested for the robbery of Graden, an officer saw Featherstone throw away a book which was later found to contain the police star used in the crime.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry Featherstone was indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for robbery.
- The indictment contained a second count under the Habitual Criminal Act of 1883, based on Featherstone's prior burglary conviction.
- At the trial court, Featherstone filed a motion to quash the second count of the indictment, arguing that the Habitual Criminal Act had been repealed. The court overruled the motion.
- A jury trial was conducted, and the State introduced the record of Featherstone's prior conviction as part of its case-in-chief.
- The jury found Featherstone guilty as charged in the indictment and also specifically found that he had been previously convicted of burglary.
- Featherstone (as plaintiff in error) brought the case before the Supreme Court of Illinois on a writ of error to review the judgment of the trial court.
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 the subsequent passage of various Parole Acts, which govern the manner of sentencing, impliedly repeal the earlier Habitual Criminal Act of 1883, which prescribes a specific, enhanced punishment for repeat offenders?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Ricks
No, the Parole Acts do not impliedly repeal the Habitual Criminal Act of 1883. The court reasoned that the two sets of laws address different subjects. The Habitual Criminal Act of 1883 fixes the 'punishment' or 'penalty' for certain crimes when committed by a repeat offender. In contrast, the Parole Acts of 1895, 1897, and 1899 relate to the 'sentence,' which is the court's pronouncement of that punishment and the manner in which it is served. The Parole Acts expressly refer to the 'maximum term provided by law,' implying that other statutes—like the Habitual Criminal Act—define what that term is. Because the acts are not in conflict and can operate concurrently, there is no implied repeal, and the indictment under the Habitual Criminal Act was proper.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinction between statutes that define criminal punishments and those that govern sentencing procedure. By holding that a sentencing scheme like the parole system does not automatically override a substantive penalty-enhancement law, the court preserved the state's ability to maintain a 'tough on crime' stance for repeat offenders while simultaneously implementing a more flexible, rehabilitative parole system for the general prison population. This ruling prevents defendants from arguing that procedural sentencing reforms have inadvertently wiped out long-standing recidivist statutes. It reinforces the principle that implied repeals are disfavored and courts will strive to read statutes harmoniously unless there is an irreconcilable conflict.
