Skip to main content
Supreme Court· 4/4/1892

O'Neil v. Vermont

Citations

  • 144 U.S. 323
  • 12 S. Ct. 693
  • 36 L. Ed. 450
  • 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2082

Syllabus

<p>A complaint, in Vermont; before a justice of the peace, for selling intoxicating liquor without authority, was in the form prescribed by the state statute, which also provided, that, under such form of complaint every distinct act of selling might be proved, and that the court should impose 'a fine for each offence. After a conviction and’ sentence before the justice of the peace, the defendant appealed to the county court, where the case was tried before a jury. The defendant did not take the point, in either court, .that there was any defect or want of fulness in the complaint. The jury found the defendant guilty of 307 offences, as of a second conviction for a like offence. He was fined $6140, being $20 for each offence, and the costs of prosecution, $497.96, and ordered to be committed until the sentence should be complied with, and it was adjudged, that if the fine and costs, and 76 cents, as costs of commitment, aggregating $6638.72, should not be paid before a day . named, he should bé confined at hard labor, in the house of correction, foT 19,914 days, being, under a statute of the State, three days for each dollar of the $6638. The facts of the case were contained in a written admission, and the defendant excepted because the court refused to hold that the facts did not constitute an offence. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of the State, (58 Vermont, 140,) which held .that there was no error. .On a writ of error from this court; Held,,</p> <p>(1) The term of imprisonment was authorized by the statute of Vermont ;</p> <p>(2) It was not assigned in this court, as error, in' the, assignment of . errors or in the brief, that the defendant was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Constitution of the United States;</p> <p>(3) So far as that is a question arising under the constitution of Vermont, it is not within the province of this court;</p> <p>(4) As a Federal question, the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United S

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • arguing the Eighth Amendment prohibits “all punishments which by their excessive length or severity are greatly disproportioned to the offenses charged.”
  • quoting, in dictum, a state court’s reasoning that “[t]he mere fact that cumulative punishments may be imposed for distinct offenses in the same prosecution is not material” to the Eighth Amendment inquiry
  • severity of defendant's punishment resulted from number of crimes he committed, which does not raise proportionality concerns
  • “If [the defendant] has subjected himself to a severe penalty, it is simply because he committed a great many such offences.”
  • “[i]f [the defendant] has subjected himself to a severe penalty, it is simply because he committed a great many such offenses”
  • severity of defendant’s punishment resulted from number of crimes he committed, which does not raise proportionality concerns

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Blatcheord, Field, Harlan, Brewer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

161 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.