They are to be distinguished from simple or petty misdemeanors.2 § 13. Infamous crimes. The term "infamous" was applied at common law to crimes disqualifying convicts as witnesses. They included treason and felonies, and also forgery and other misdemeanors affecting, by falsehood and fraud, the administration of justice, such as perjury, conspiracy to falsely accuse one of crime, etc., but did not include cases of cheating, assault and battery, and other mere breaches of the peace, etc.3 It was the nature of the offense, and not the punishment, that rendered it infamous. by some of the courts in this country, are the more serious or aggravated misdemeanors; those which are more nearly allied and equal in guilt to felony, but do not fall within its definition." Fimara v. Garner, 86 Conn. 434, 85 Atl. 670. 2 Fimara v. Garner, 86 Conn. 434, 85 Atl. 670. 3 United States. Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417; 29 L. Ed. 89, 5 Sup. Ct. 935. Alabama. Smith v. State, 129 Ala. 183. 1 Maine. Butler v. Wentworth, 84 Me. 25, 24 Atl. 456, 17 L. R. A. 764. Maryland. Garitee v. Bond, 102 Md. 379, 62 Atl. 631, 111 Am. St. Rep. 385, 5 Ann. Cas. 915; State v. Bixler, 62 Md. 354. New Hampshire. Little v. Gibson, 39 N. H. 505. New Jersey. State v. Henson, 66 This rule has been adopted and in some states it is the Vermont. State v. Keyes, 8 Vt. 57, 30 Am. Dec. 450. Virginia. Barbour v. Com., 80 Va. 287. 4 Alabama. Smith V. State, 129 Ala. 89, 29 So. 699, 87 Am. St. Rep. 47. Illinois. McLain v. City of Chicago, 127 Ill. App. 489. Maine. Butler v. Wentworth, 84 Me. 25, 24 Atl. 456, 17 L. R. A. 764. Maryland. Dutton v. State, 123 Md. 373, 91 Atl. 417, Ann. Cas. 1916 C 89; Garitee v. Bond, 102 Md. 379, 62 Atl. 631, 111 Am. St. Rep. 385, 5 Ann. Cas. 915; State v. Bixler, 62 Md. 354. New York. People v. Whipple, 9 Cow. 707. Pennsylvania. Bickel's Ex'rs v. Fasig's Adm'r, 33 Pa. St. 463. Rhode Island. State v. Nichols, 27 R. I. 69, 60 Atl. 763. Vermont. State v. Keyes, 8 Vt. 57, 30 Am. Dec. 450. Wisconsin. Koch V. State, 126 Wis. 470, 106 N. W. 531, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1086, 5 Ann. Cas. 389. 5 Dakota. People v. Sponsler, 1 Dak. 289, 46 N. W. 459. Maryland Dutton v. State, 123 Md. 373, 91 Atl. 417, Ann. Cas. 1916 C 89; Garitee v. Bond, 102 Md. 379, 62 Atl. 631, 111 Am. St. Rep. 385, 5 rule by statute. In other jurisdictions, however, it is held that whether or not a crime is infamous depends upon whether or not an infamous punishment may be awarded for its commission," and that any offense is infamous that may be punished by death or by imprisonment in a state prison, with or without hard labor. The test Ann. Cas. 915; State v. Bixler, 62 Md. 354. New Hampshire. Little v. Gibson, 39 N. H. 505. New York. People v. Whipple, 9 Cow. 707; Barker v. People, 20 Johns. 457, aff'd 3 Cow. 686, 15 Am. Dec. 322. But see People v. Parr, 4 N. Y. Cr. 545. Pennsylvania. Davis v. Carey, 141 Pa. St. 314, 21 Atl. 633; County of Schuylkill v. Copley, 67 Pa. St. 386, 5 Am. Rep. 441; Bickel's Ex'rs v. Fasig's Adm'r, 33 Pa. St. 463; Bailey v. Bailey, 26 Pa. Co. Ct. 553; Com. v. Shaver, 3 Watts & S. 338. Vermont. State v. Keyes, 8 Vt. 57, 30 Am. Dec. 450. Virginia. Barbour v. Com., 80 Va. 287. 6 In Missouri the statute provides that the term "infamous crime'' shall be construed as including every of fense for which the offender, on conviction or sentence, is declared to be disqualified or rendered incompetent to be a witness or juror, or to vote at any election, or to hold any of fice of honor, profit or trust within the state. Rev. St. 1919, § 3713. Under this provision a crime may be infamous although it is a misdemeanor, as, for example, oppression in office, State v. Kruger, 280 Mo. 293, 217 S. W. 310; or petit larceny. Hartwig v. Hartwig, 160 Mo. App. 284, 142 S. W. 797. 7 Borino v. Lounsbury, 86 Conn. 622, 86 Atl. 597; Palmer v. Lenovitz, 35 App. Cas. (D. C.) 303; United States v. Evans, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 264; Gudger v. Penland, 108 N. C. 593, 13 S. E. 168, 23 Am. St. Rep. 73. See also cases cited in the following note. V. "An offense the conviction and punishment whereof involves moral turpitude and social degradation.' McKee v. Wilson, 87 N. C. 300. 8 United States. Fitzpatrick United States, 178 U. S. 304, 44 L. Ed. 1078, 20 Sup. Ct. 944; In re Claasen, 140 U. S. 200, 35 L. Ed. 409, 11 Sup. Ct. 735; United States v. De Walt, 128 U. S. 393, 32 L. Ed. 485, 9 Sup. Ct. 111; Mackin v. United States, 117 U. S. 348, 29 L. Ed. 909, 6 Sup. Ct. 777; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 29 L. Ed. 89, 5 Sup. Ct. 935; Sheridan v. United States, 236 Fed. 305; Low v. United States, 169 Fed. 86; Jamison v. Wimbish, 130 Fed. 351, rev'd 199 U. S. 599, 60 L. Ed. 327, 26 Sup. Ct. 747; Ex parte McClusky, 40 Fed. 71. Alaska. United States v. Kono, 4 Alaska 613. Arizona. Territory V. Blomberg, 2 Ariz. 204, 11 Pac. 671. District of Columbia. Chambers v. Buroughs, 44 App. Cas. 168, certiorari denied, 239 U. S. 649, 60 L. Ed. 485, 36 Sup. Ct. 284; Palmer v. Lenovitz, 35 App. Cas. 303; United States v. Evans, 28 App. Cas. 264. Maine. Butler v. Wentworth, 84 Me. 25, 24 Atl. 456, 17 L. R. A. 764. Massachusetts. Jones v. Robbins, 8 Gray 329. Compare Com. v. Dame, 8 Cush. 384. Michigan. People v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611, 42 N. W. 1124, 4 L. R. A. 751. under the latter rule is the possible punishment that may be imposed, and not that actually awarded in the particular case. In still other jurisdictions the crimes which are to be deemed infamous are specifically enumerated by statute.10 Whether or not a crime of which a person has been convicted is infamous so as to disqualify him from holding office or testifying as a witness in a particular state is to be determined by the laws of that state rather than by those of the jurisdiction where he was convicted.11 § 14. Crimes mala in se and mala prohibita. Crimes are divided. into those that are mala in se, or wrong in themselves, and those that are mala prohibita, or wrong merely because they are prohibited and New York. People v. Parr, 4 N. Y. Cr. 545, under a statute. North Carolina. Gudger v. Penland, 108 N. C. 593, 13 S. E. 168, 23 Am. St. Rep. 73; McKee v. Wilson, 87 N. C. 300. Rhode Island. The term "infamous crimes" as used in the constitution means crimes which at any given time may be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of one year or more. State v. Nichols, 27 R. I. 69, 60 Atl. 763; State v. Nolan, 15 R. I. 529, 10 Atl. 481. The terms "state prison" and "penitentiary" are synonymous, and mean "a prison for the compulsory confinement, generally at compulsory labor, of convicts from the criminal courts." The term "state prison" is not used in the rule in the general sense of any jail or lock-up of a county or city owned by the state. United States v. Smith, 40 Fed. 755. 9 Fitzpatrick v. United States, 178 U. S. 304, 44 L. Ed. 1078, 20 Sup. Ct. 944; In re Claasen, 140 U. S. 200, 35 L. Ed. 409, 11 Sup. Ct. 735; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 29 L. Ed. 89, 5 Sup. Ct. 935; United States v. Smith, 40 Fed. 755; Ex parte Mc Clusky, 40 Fed. 71; Borino v. Lounsbury, 86 Conn. 622, 86 Atl. 597; United States v. Evans, 28 App. Cas. (D. C.) 264; Butler v. Wentworth, 84 Me. 25, 24 Atl. 456, 17 L. R. A. 764. 10 In Illinois, "infamous" crimes are enumerated in the statute, and are murder, rape, kidnapping, perjury and subornation of perjury, arson, burglary, robbery, sodomy, or other crime against nature, incest, forgery, counterfeiting, bigamy; and larceny if the punishment for said larceny is by imprisonment in the penitentiary. J. & A. 3972; Cahill's Ill. St. ch. 38, ¶ 616. People v. Russell, 245 Ill. 268, 91 N. E. 1075; People v. George, 186 Ill. 122, 57 N. E. 804; Honselman v. People, 168 Ill. 172, 48 N. E. 304; People v. Waltyn, 191 Ill. App. 86; People v. Rowe, 157 Ill. App. 542; McLain v. City of Chicago, 127 Ill. App. 489; Beattie v. People, 33 Ill. App. 651. Whether or not a crime is infamous depends upon the statute and not upon the common law. People v. Russell, 245 Ill. 268, 91 N. E. 1075. 11 Garitee v. Bond, 102 Md. 379, 62 Atl. 631, 111 Am. St. Rep. 385, 5 Ann. Cas. 915. punished by statute.12 Crimes mala in se include, in addition to felonies, all breaches of the public peace or order, injuries to person or property, outrages upon public decency or good morals, and wilful and corrupt breaches of official duty.18 They are not confined to acts made criminal by the common law. 14 And an act may be malum in se although it amounts only to a civil trespass, provided it has a malicious element, or manifests an evil nature, or wrongful disposition to harm or injure another in his person or property.15 Acts mala prohibita include any act forbidden by statute, but not otherwise wrong.16 12 United States. United States v. O'Connor, 31 Fed. 449. See also Shevlin-Carpenter Co. V. State of Minnesota, 218 U. S. 57, 54 L. Ed. 930, 30 Sup. Ct. 663, aff'g 102 Minn. 470, 114 N. W. 738, 113 N. W. 634. Illinois. Walsh v. People, 65 Ill. 58, 16 Am. Rep. 569. Massachusetts. Com. v. Adams, 114 Mass. 323, 19 Am. Rep. 362; Com. v. Willard, 22 Pick. 476. North Carolina. State v. Horton, 139 N. C. 588, 51 S. E. 945, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 991, 111 Am. St. Rep. 818, 4 Ann. Cas. 797. South Carolina. State v. Rankin, 3 S. C. 438, 16 Am. Rep. 737. "An offense malum in se is properly defined as one which is naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community, whereas an act malum prohibitum is only wrong because made so by statute." State v. Horton; 139 N. C. 588, 51 S. E. 945, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 991, 111 Am. St. Rep. 818, 4 Ann. Cas. 797. Acts mala in se involve moral turpitude while those mala prohibita do not. Wagstaff v. Schippel, 27 Kan. 450; State v. Heldenbrand, 62 Neb. 136, 87 N. W. 25, 89 Am. St. Rep. 743. Subject to constitutional limitations, the legislature may make any act a crime whether it involves moral turpitude or not. State v. Helden brand, 62 Neb. 136, 87 N. W. 25, 89 Am. St. Rep. 743. "According to Blackstone, every person is bound in conscience not to do an act which is malum in se, and the doing of every such act is a crime, whether it is so declared or not." Jenkins v. State, 14 Ga. App. 276, 80 S. E. 688. 13 Com. v. Adams, 114 Mass. 323, 19 Am. Rep. 362; Com. v. Willard, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 476. Going upon another's land and cutting down and carrying away his timber is malum in se. Wagstaff v. Schippel, 27 Kan. 450. 14 State v. Horton, 139 N. C. 588, 51 S. E. 945, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 991, 111 Am. St. Rep. 818, 4 Ann. Cas. 797. 15 State v. Horton, 139 N. C. 588, 51 S. E. 945, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 991, 111 Am. St. Rep. 818, 4 Ann. Cas. 797. 16 Com. v. Adams, 114 Mass. 323, 19 Am. Rep. 362. The following offenses, for example, are mala prohibita: driving at a speed in excess of that permitted by a city ordinance, Com. v. Adams, 114 Mass. 323, 19 Am. Rep. 362; hunting on land without the written permission of the owner in violation of a statute, State v. Horton, 139 N. C. 588, 51 S. E. 945, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 991, 111 Am. St. Rep. 818, § 15. Same act may constitute several offenses. The same act or transaction may constitute, in whole or in part, two or more distinct offenses, in which case the person committing it may be prosecuted for either, and it is no defense to an indictment against him for one of them that he might also have been prosecuted for the other.17 So 4 Ann. Cas. 797; attempting to pass a tollgate without paying toll, Estell v. State, 51 N. J. L. 182, 17 Atl. 118; offenses against the liquor laws, Fort v. City of Brinkley, 87 Ark. 400, 112 S. W. 1084; Com. v. Willard, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 476; People v. Werner, 174 N. Y. 132, 66 N. E. 667; People v. D'Antonio, 150 N. Y. App. Div. 109, 134 N. Y. Supp. 657; selling liquor to Indians. Voves v. United States, 249 Fed. 191. 17 United States. Crossley v. State of California, 168 U. S. 640, 42 L. Ed. 610, 18 Sup. Ct. 242; In re Converse, 137 U. S. 624, 34 L. Ed. 796, 11 Sup. Ct. 191. Arkansas. Coon v. State, 109 Ark. 346, 160 S. W. 226. Illinois. People v. Singer, 288 Ill. 113, 123 N. E. 327; People v. Dempsey, 283 Ill. 342, 119 N. E. 333; People v. Miller, 278 Ill. 490, 116 N. E. 131, L. R. A. 1917 E 797. Iowa. State v. Johns, 140 Iowa 125, 118 N. W. 295. Kentucky. Com. v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 154 Ky. 787, 159 S. W. 570; Com. v. Tobin, 140 Ky. 261, 130 S. W. 1116; Hughes v. Com., 131 Ky. 502, 115 S. W. 744, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 693; Com. v. Barbour, 121 Ky. 463, 89 S. W. 479, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 620; Peacock Distilling Co. v. Com., 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1778, 78 S. W. 893. For example, the same aet may constitute robbery and larceny (see § 734, infra); or larceny from a railroad car and larceny from a house,. Bone v. State, 121 Ga. 147, 48 S. E. 986; or larceny and bunko-steering, Fleming v. State, 174 Ind. 264, 91 N. E. 1085; or simple larceny and larceny after trust (see § 733 et seq., infra); or assault with intent to murder and assault with intent to rob. Daniels v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. 286, 162 S. W. 500. And under some statutes the receiver of stolen goods may be charged with the theft as a principal or with being a receiver of stolen goods. State v. Fox, 83 Com. 286, 76 Atl. 302, 19 Ann. Cas. 682; State v. Kaplan, 72 Conn. 635, 45 Atl. 1018. A man who has sexual intercourse with a woman may thereby be guilty of both rape and adultery, Sigerella v. State, 1 Boyce (Del.) 157, 74 Atl. 1081; or of both rape and of the statutory offense of taking, receiving, harboring, using, etc., a female under the age of eighteen for the purpose of sexual intercourse, Sigerella v. State, 1 Boyce (Del.) 157, 74 Atl. 1081; or having carnal knowledge of a female under a specified age, State v. Skillman, 228 Mo. 434, 128 S. W. 729; or of statutory rape and seduction. Chapman v. State, 61 Neb. 888, 86 N. W. 907. That a man who marries a woman while he is already married is guilty of bigamy will not prevent his prosecution for rape by fraud. Melton v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 130, 158 S. W 550. |