Also known as:assise · assizes · assiser · assizer · assizor · court session
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
1
A periodic session of court held by royal justices in medieval England to hear criminal accusations and civil disputes.
2
A decree or ordinance promulgated during such a court session declaring legal rules or procedures.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Sense 1
1
Sense 1
A periodic session of court held by royal justices in medieval England to hear criminal accusations and civil disputes.
Examples6
Self-Defense Claim at Assize
Arthur Abrams faced an attacker wielding a heavy club in a crowded square. He responded with a single precise strike that fractured the attacker's arm. At the assize the court examined whether the intended force created a substantial risk of fatal consequences.
Grand Jury Presentment in Assize
Abigail Alvarez was accused of theft before the justices. Twelve free men of the hundred swore to the facts under oath. The assize proceeded to determine whether the presentment satisfied the requirements for trial.
Sense 2
2
Sense 2
A decree or ordinance promulgated during such a court session declaring legal rules or procedures.
1 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
What role did the Assize of Clarendon play in the development of the grand jury?
The Assize of Clarendon required accusations by the oath of twelve lawful men of the hundred. This procedure established the foundation for the grand jury's charging function recognized in later American constitutional law.
Joseph Hurtado was charged by an information filed in the Superior Court of Sacramento County with the murder of Jose Antonio Estuardo. The information was in the usual form and charged the crime with technical precision and in due legal language. It was filed after the defendant had been examined and committed by a magistrate, as required by the statute.
The Constitution of California, adopted in 1879, provides that offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment. The Penal Code of the State, adopted in 1872 and in force at the time, contained provisions authorizing every person to be proceeded against criminally by indictment or by information, and specifying that an information is an accusation in writing presented by the district attorney after preliminary examination or waiver.
Hurtado moved to set aside the information on the ground that it was not found or presented by a grand jury. The motion was overruled. He was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and was put upon his trial. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, and judgment was pronounced sentencing him to be hanged.
From this judgment Hurtado appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of California, which affirmed it. He then sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Angela Acosta stood convicted of rebellion before the special commission. The presiding justice imposed death without further inquiry into mitigating factors. The assize record later became central to claims of cruel punishment.
Harmelin v. Michigan501 U.S. 957, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)
Ronald Harmelin was convicted in Michigan state court of possessing 672 grams of cocaine.
Michigan law imposed a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole for that quantity of the drug. Harmelin had no prior felony convictions.
The Michigan Court of Appeals initially reversed the conviction because evidence supporting it had been obtained in violation of the Michigan Constitution. On petition for rehearing, the Court of Appeals vacated its prior decision and affirmed the sentence. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. The quantity of cocaine at issue had a potential yield of between 32,500 and 65,000 doses. The sentencing court imposed the mandatory term without considering any individualized circumstances of the offense or the offender.
Harmelin challenged the sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, arguing both that it was grossly disproportionate to the crime and that the mandatory nature of the penalty was unconstitutional.
Alexandra Armstrong was found guilty of arson at the assize. The judge exercised unfettered discretion to choose between death and imprisonment. The absence of standards governing the choice later drew constitutional challenge.
Furman v. Georgia408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972)
In 1969 William Henry Furman was convicted of murder in Georgia and sentenced to death under Ga. Code Ann. § 26-1005 (Supp. 1971), after which the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in 225 Ga. 253, 167 S.E.2d 628 (1969). In the same year Lucius Jackson, Jr., was convicted of rape in Georgia and sentenced to death under Ga. Code Ann. § 26-1302 (Supp. 1971), and the same court affirmed that judgment in 225 Ga. 790, 171 S.E.2d 501 (1969). Also in 1969 Elmer Branch was convicted of rape in Texas and sentenced to death under Tex. Penal Code, Art. 1189 (1961), after which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment in 447 S.W.2d 932 (Ct. Crim. App. 1969).
Each death sentence was imposed after a jury trial under a statute that left the choice between death and a lesser punishment to the uncontrolled discretion of the jury or judge, and the state courts upheld the convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the question whether the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, then consolidated the matters for argument in January 1972.
The records showed that the three petitioners were Black men convicted of crimes against white victims. Furman had been diagnosed with mild mental deficiency and psychotic episodes associated with convulsive disorder, while Jackson and Branch had limited education and low intelligence scores. No standards guided the sentencing decision, and the penalty was imposed on only a trivial fraction of eligible offenders despite statutory authorization for these offenses.
Andrew Avery was tried for murder after a tavern brawl. Witnesses testified he had been drinking heavily before the act. The assize considered whether the intoxication could negate premeditation under the prevailing rule.
Montana v. Egelhoff518 U.S. 37, 116 S.Ct. 2013, 135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996)
On July 12, 1992, respondent James Egelhoff was camping in the Yaak region of northwestern Montana with Roberta Pavola and John Christenson to pick mushrooms. The three sold the mushrooms they had collected and spent the rest of the day and evening drinking in bars and at a private party in Troy, Montana. After leaving the party after 9 p.m. in Christenson's 1974 Ford Galaxy station wagon, the drinking continued, as Egelhoff was seen buying beer at 9:20 p.m. and recalled passing a bottle of Black Velvet with Christenson.
Around midnight, officers of the Lincoln County sheriff's department discovered the station wagon stuck in a ditch along U.S. Highway 2. Pavola and Christenson were in the front seat, each dead from a single gunshot to the head. Egelhoff lay in the rear of the car, alive and yelling obscenities, with a blood-alcohol content of .36 percent measured over an hour later. His .38-caliber handgun lay on the floor near the brake pedal with four loaded rounds and two empty casings, and he had gunshot residue on his hands.
Egelhoff was charged with two counts of deliberate homicide under Montana law requiring that he purposely or knowingly caused the deaths of another human being. At trial he claimed an unidentified fourth person must have committed the murders, that his extreme intoxication rendered him physically incapable of committing them, and that it accounted for his inability to recall the events. The trial court instructed the jury pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 45-2-203 that it could not consider respondent's intoxicated condition in determining the existence of a mental state which is an element of the offense. The jury found Egelhoff guilty on both counts and the court sentenced him to 84 years' imprisonment.
The Supreme Court of Montana reversed the convictions. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Alan Ackerman sued a carrier for delayed delivery of mill parts. The assize weighed whether the carrier had notice of special circumstances at the time of contracting. Liability turned on the foreseeability of the resulting losses.
Hadley v. Baxendale9 Ex. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854)
The plaintiffs carried on the business of millers and mealmen in copartnership at the City Steam-Mills in Gloucester and operated a steam-engine there to clean corn, grind it into meal, and dress it into flour, sharps, and bran. A crank shaft of the steam-engine broke, stopping the mill. The plaintiffs ordered a new crank shaft from W. Joyce & Co. at Greenwich, who required the broken shaft to be sent as a pattern so the replacement would fit the uninjured parts of the engine.
On 13 May the plaintiffs' servant delivered the broken shaft to the defendants, who traded as Pickford & Co. and acted as common carriers, at their Gloucester office. The servant told the clerk the mill was stopped and the shaft must be sent immediately. The clerk stated that if the shaft were sent by twelve o'clock that day it would be delivered at Greenwich the following day. The defendants took the shaft before noon and the plaintiffs paid £2 4s. for its carriage the whole distance.
The defendants delayed delivery of the shaft to Greenwich through neglect. As a result, the plaintiffs did not receive the new shaft until several days later than they otherwise would have. Their mill remained idle for five days beyond the time they otherwise would have been prevented from working. During that period the plaintiffs were unable to supply many customers with flour, sharps, and bran, were obliged to buy flour for some customers, lost the opportunity to sell their products, and had to pay wages to workmen they could not employ.
The defendants paid £25 into court in satisfaction of the claim under the second count. At trial before Crompton, J., at the Gloucester Assizes the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs with £25 damages in excess of the amount paid into court. A rule nisi for a new trial was obtained on the ground of misdirection.
An assize served as a periodic court session convened by royal justices to hear criminal accusations and civil disputes. It also issued legislative decrees such as the Assize of Clarendon that shaped grand jury procedure.
How did the Bloody Assizes influence later constitutional limits on punishment?
The Bloody Assizes involved summary trials and mass executions under Chief Justice Jeffreys. Those proceedings contributed to the English Declaration of Rights prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments later incorporated into the Eighth Amendment.
518 U.S. 37, 116 S. Ct. 2013, 135 L. Ed. 2d 361 (1996)
…proper to be taken into consideration." 1 W. Russell, Crimes and Misdemeanors 8 (citing King v. Grindley, Worcester Sum. Assizes 1819, MS). This exception was "slow to take root," however, Hall, Intoxication and Criminal Responsibility, 57 Harv. L. Rev. 1045, 1049 (1944), even in England. Indeed, in the 1835 case of…