\
FELONY DISCUS,3ION AS TO FORGERY BEING SO CLAnSED ETC .
" 18 USCA Sec . 541 (Title 18 , Chap . 15) (Criminal Code Sec . 335)
Felonies and misdemeanors , petty offenses; prosecut ion of petty
offense upon information or r: omplaint . All offenses which aay
be punished by death or impr isonment for a term exceeding one
year shall be de eme d felonies . All other offenses shall be
deemed misdemeanors: Provided , that all offenses the penalty
for which does not exceed confin~ment in a COl:IInon jail , without
hard labor for a period of siX months , or a fine of not more
than ~~ 500 . 00 , or both , shall be deemed to be petty offenses;
and all such petty offenses may be prosecuted upon information
or complaint . "
1 felonies as defined by this section , are "infamous crimes", withthe Vth Amendnent, for ",hich no civilian may be held to answer
less on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . Falconi VS
• S . 280 F 768 .
prisonment in a penitentiary characterizes a crime as an "inamous crime" , as does imprison:r:1ent at hard labor in any institution
or a definite term . Catlette v US 132 F2d 902 .
orgery, bing punishabl e under the Federal Law by imprisonment for
ot Flore than 10 years, is a" f elony" , so that conviction thereof in
Federal District Court, though punishment was assessed at confineent in jail for 60 days, authorized revocation by State Court of
revious suspens~on of sent ence for burglary . Cisneros v . State , 1 944 ,
79 SW2nd 313 .
ORGERYis not a felony at C01JkON LA;V. State v . Murphy 24 A 473; 16 LRA
50; holding that forgery is not a felony at common law, and an inictment for for ge ry need not allege that the offense was feloniously
onrrnitted, at l east not unles s drawn under a stptute declaring it to
e a felony . .Further holding some states statutory provisions hold
}:lat all offenses whi ch are punishab l e either by de ath or by imprisonent in the state prison shall be felonies . There is no such statute
n this state (HHODE IGLtiliD), so "\Ie :r.lUSt therefore resort to the
OlIDHon law in order to determine the questi on . Felony is ordinarily
efined to be an offense which occasions a total forfeiture of either
ands or goods , or bo th, at th e common law, and to whic h capital or
ther punishment may be superadded, a ccording to the degree of the euilt •
f course , it is to be forne in mind that this definition of felony is
ainly historical , ond shows what it was several centuries ago, while
t convey s only a faint c onception of what it is now . In fact, there
s not, nor ever was , practically any such thing as felony in the United
tates . For while we sDear: of c ertain crimes , such as larceny, robery , burglary , rape, arson, murder , etc, as fe loni es , yet it is malnJy
eCliuse v· ]-,ave b een taught that at th e CO'lIK'n LaVl they are so denomnated . But when vve come to a'!ply the ancient English test of felony ,
s set forth in the abov e definition , we find that there is not, stricty speaking, any such crime knovm to our law . Indeed, the rigor of
he comMm law itself has been so far modified by statute in England
hat there now remain but very few of the characteristics of the
ncient crime of felony . The change in the form of the indictment ,
owever, has not l~ept pace with the change in th e consequences of the
rime, so that it is still necessary to allege in al l of those cases
here the crime was a felony at the common law, and 'INhere the statute
as not provided what should constitute th e offense, or prescribed a
orm of indict:amnt, that it was done "feloniously" . Ci t ehlg G:'ain v .
exas, 18 T 387 .
"The question then which presents itself in this case is whether FORERY was a felony at corarrlon law . We do not find that it ever was .
he definition of forgery at corm~10n ~X law as ~ i ven by Blackstone (4
om . 247 ) is: "'1'he fraudulent making or alteration of a writing to
he prejudice of another man's right", --and cites other ancient deinitions et~ . ----W1§~ Wharton, in his excelent work on Criminal
aw (Vol. 1 , ~eg 654) says: By the conrrnon law, forgery is a misdemeacr .
By statutes passed in Eneland and the United s tates, various
nds of for ge ry are nade felonies . iVhe ther in particular case s the
s atute pas absorbed the off ense, is a matter of s pe cial statutory
c nstruction . • It may be generally stated that unle~ s the statute
its terms un~erta~es to be absorptive , establishing a statutory
fense coextenSllTe wlth the, offense at common law , forgery may still
pursued as a cormaon-law mlsdemeanor in cases to which the statute
~s not reach in those states where a cOLLmon - law criminal jurisdiction
e lStS . On the other hand , when the statute , in its terms is coexten s ve with the oor;:unon law , then the stat utory remedy must be exclusively
f l lowed; and eml nently important is it for the pleader to recolle ct
t i s in cases where by statute the offense is made a felony" . Etc .
B pro~isi?ns of Ar ~ . 54 PC , every offense which is punishable by death
o by ~mprl~onment ln the pentitntiary , either absolutely or as an alt rn~tlv e , l~ a fe l ony : Forgeries , be i ng punishabl e absol utely by
c nflnement ln the pen l t ent i ary , are fe l onie s . Pitner v . St ate, 5SW 210
6
T
a
A
c
t
t
CJS ' 445 ARMY & NAVY
Court s-I'Llartial
Sec . 54--JURISDICTION~.t~ Se c . A
e general rule,is that the jurisdiction of civil courts is concurrent
too f fe~ses tr~a? l e ~efore ~ourts -martial ' Funk v . state , 208 S\V 509)
t? strlctly mllltary offenses , however , their jursidiction is exuSlve; and when tlae armies of the United States are in hostile ter rtory , and engaged i n act ua l warfare the jurisdiction of such
ibunals is exc lusive . 24 Op AttY- Ge~ 57 0, 574 .
S c . B : The jurisdiction' of Court s-ma rtial as to fJffense s extend s
t a l l fJffenses made c ognizable by suc h c ourt s by the Arti c les of War
o by the several statutory provision s in t he nature of articles of war
d these of~enses may i nclude not only pur ely military offenses , but '
a so some WhlCh are off enses against the general law . A court-martial
i usual l y resorted to f?r the trial of offenses of a pur el y military
n ture , or those made trlabl e by such courts by positi ~ e law , and it
w 11 ~ot be presumed that a cour t-martial wil l exceed i ts jurj.sdiction ,
i th~s res '") ect , but thi s must be cl earl y shown . THE C Ol.Jv~ON -LAW dis t n c tl on between fe l onie s and misdemeanors is not a ppl i cable to mili t ry offens e s . US v Cl ar k 31 'F 71 0 . ( ~~XXNXX~x~X«XE~ )
S e Art . 42 MCM--Puni s hments