Howard v. Fleming

Background

A group of men were tried in a North Carolina state court for a scheme to defraud people by selling a pretended gold brick. The state’s highest court found the indictment sufficient, treated conspiracy to defraud as a common-law crime, and affirmed convictions and prison sentences. Two related cases reached the Supreme Court: one by a writ of error from the state court and one as a habeas corpus case from a federal court. The defendants argued the charge was not a crime, the sentences were unusually harsh and unequal, and that the trial judge denied due process by not instructing on a presumption of innocence.

Reasoning

The Court explained it could not overturn a state court’s determination about state law—that North Carolina recognized conspiracy to defraud as a common-law offense—because that is not a federal question. On the constitutional claims, the Court found no denial of equal protection or cruel and unusual punishment: two defendants received ten years and one seven years, which the Court did not view as cruel for this swindle. Sentencing the men to the penitentiary instead of to road labor was allowed under a North Carolina statute that permits such sentences when the judge reasonably fears attempts to free or harm the convicted, and the state court’s omission of a formal recital did not invalidate the judgment. The judge had properly instructed the jury that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so the absence of a separate statement about a presumption of innocence did not deny due process.

Real world impact

The decision leaves the state convictions and prison terms standing and limits Supreme Court review when a state court’s ruling rests on state law and no federal constitutional claim was preserved. The habeas corpus judgment from the federal court was affirmed, and requests to change custody were denied.

Dissents or concurrances

Mr. Justice Hablan concurred in the result.