By ESTEBAN PARRA and PATRICK JACKSON
The News Journal
04/12/2005
The Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed itself Monday, withdrawing a ruling that would have released more than 200 criminals, including murderers and rapists, from prison.
It also, however, declared unconstitutional a law passed by the General Assembly that attempted to overrule its earlier decision, citing centuries of case law and philosophy on the importance of dividing governmental powers.
The law violates that principle by attempting to grant powers to the Legislature that are reserved for the courts, the judges said.
"The powers of government should be so divided and balanced ... that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others," the judges wrote, quoting Thomas Jefferson.
The court said its November ruling, which ignited a political firestorm by freeing the inmates, was based on overly broad language in two earlier decisions and was thus flawed.
"I'm thrilled and so are the victims who have been affected," said Attorney General M. Jane Brady. Monday, she noted, was the start of National Crime Victims' Rights Week.
Brady also commended the court for reviewing its decision.
"That is not something that they do often," Brady said, "and I really respect them for willingly reconsidering the matter."
The court itself concurred with her statement.
"Although en banc opinions are not withdrawn frequently, it does happen occasionally. We have concluded that the opinion issued by this Court on November 23, 2004, must be withdrawn," the judges wrote in the ruling.
The new opinion means that the only way an inmate serving a life sentence with a possibility of parole can be released from prison is if a parole board approves.
In its November ruling, the Supreme Court said Ward T. Evans, a 57-year-old rapist sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, could be released in 45 years and that he was eligible for time off for good behavior.
Evans committed his crime before Delaware's Truth in Sentencing Act of 1989, which changed the definition of a life sentence to a natural life. Before the law's June 30, 1990, enactment, a life sentence was considered 45 years.
Initially, the Supreme Court denied the initial motion of the Attorney General's Office for reargument in the case, but it made an about-face after House Bill 31 was passed and Gov. Ruth Ann Minner signed it into law. After signing the bill, Minner asked the court to consider the law's constitutionality.
Centuries in the making
The court devoted most of the first 26 pages of its opinion Monday to that question and to separation of powers, a governmental doctrine employed in the U.S. Constitution to prevent any one branch of government from gaining too much power.
The ruling declares HB 31 unconstitutional in its entirety, citing the critical importance of separation of powers in U.S. systems of government and tracing the history of dividing power among three branches to Aristotle, the fourth-century B.C. Greek philosopher.
Among the reasons for the American Revolution, which led to the formation of the United States, was King George III's refusal to approve laws establishing judicial powers in the then-British colonies and making judges dependent on him for their jobs and salaries, the judges said.
"There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers," the justices wrote, quoting 17th- and 18th-century philosopher Charles Montesquieu.
Consequently, when the constitutions for the United States and its member states were written, they divided the powers of government among legislative, executive and judicial branches, the judges wrote.
Under the three-pronged system, the court said, interpreting the law is the exclusive province
of the judiciary. U.S. Supreme Court case law establishes that courts alone may decide how a law applies to a specific case, though legislatures are free to change the law that will be applied to future cases.
Provisions in HB 31 that would make the General Assembly the "ultimate arbiter of the intent, meaning, and construction of its laws" and establish specific standards for judges to apply when interpreting the law give the Legislature judicial powers, the ruling said, and are therefore unconstitutional. So is the provision that nullifies a Supreme Court ruling, the judges said.
Law not going anywhere for now
Minner spokesman Gregory Patterson said the court's ruling is in line with the thinking behind the law, adding that the law is a way to keep in check other branches of government.
"This is what checks and balances are for, to allow for a back and forth," he said.
The law's architect, House Majority Leader Wayne A. Smith, R-Clair Manor, said he has mixed feelings about the court's decision.
"It's a 50-50 proposition," he said. "The General Assembly performed a great public service to all Delawareans by getting the Supreme Court to reconsider its opinion on Evans vs. State. Because of that, people can sleep better tonight knowing that hundreds of dangerous criminals will be staying behind bars. We can be proud of that."
But Smith said he was not happy that the court gutted HB 31.
"It leaves future general assemblies with no choice but impeachment, if a court goes too far in legislating from the bench," he said. He also said he had no intention of striking the bill from the books.
"I am concerned because of what this does to the balance and separation of powers between the General Assembly and the courts," Smith said. "If we keep this on the books, it is my hope some future Supreme Court will reconsider it."
Contact Esteban Parra at 324-2299 or eparra@delawareonline.com.
Contact Patrick Jackson at 678-4274 or pjackson@delawareonline.com.
