TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hart v. Virginia

Hart v. Virginia, 298 U.S. 34 (1936)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 13, 1936
Docket
No. 857
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
298 U.S. 3456 S. Ct. 67280 L. Ed. 10301936 U.S. LEXIS 700

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

Appellant, a convict, was convicted of the felonious killing of one Alton Leonard, a prison guard, in whose custody appellant was working. The jury fixed his punishment at death. The conviction and sentence were pursuant to §§ 5049 and 5051 of the Virginia Code, 1930, providing, so far as pertinent, as follows:

“§ 5049.. A convict confined in the penitentiary, or in custody of an officer, shall be deemed guilty of felony if he kill, wound, or inflict other bodily injury upon an officer or guard of the penitentiary; . . .”

“§ 5051. A convict guilty of such killing as is mentioned in section five thousand and forty-nine, or of any act therein mentioned, from which death ensues to such officer or guard, shall be punished with death.”

Appellant challenged these provisions as being repugnant to the due process and equal protection clauses *35 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. His main contentions were that the statute was so broad as to embrace excusable homicide and that, as a convict he was deprived of the equal protection of the laws relating to murder and manslaughter.

We take the statute as construed by the state court and applied in the instant case. Appellant defended the killing of Leonard upon the ground of self-defense. The evidence in support of that defense, with all the circumstances of the case, was submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions which recognized the admissibility of the defense under the statute. The trial court, defining with care the right of self-defense, charged the jury that if appellant had acted in the exercise of that right, the jury should find him not guilty. The Supreme Court of Appeals refused to review the judgment upon the ground that it was “plainly right.”

As we find no substantial federal question presented, the appeal is dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, (1)

Lee v. New Jersey, 207 U. S. 67, 70 ;

Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 160 ;

Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277 ; (2)

Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U. S. 616, 630 ;

Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78, 79 ;

Price v. Illinois, 238 U. S. 446, 453 .

Dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1974: 11975: 11981: 119742026peak 1974 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Washington v. Commonwealth217 S.E.2d 815 (Va. 1975)
  2. Evans v. Commonwealth284 S.E.2d 816 (Va. 1981)
  3. Jefferson v. Commonwealth204 S.E.2d 258 (Va. 1974)

Most recent

  1. Evans v. Commonwealth284 S.E.2d 816 (Va. 1981)
  2. Washington v. Commonwealth217 S.E.2d 815 (Va. 1975)
  3. Jefferson v. Commonwealth204 S.E.2d 258 (Va. 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61 (1911) 1,401
Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616 (1912) 413
N.Y. ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152 (1907) 217
Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273 (1915) 142
Price v. Illinois, 238 U.S. 446 (1915) 85
Lee v. New Jersey, 207 U.S. 67 (1907) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list