Houston v. Williams
Before: Field
Synopsis
The Legislature cannot, require the Supreme Court to give the reasons of its decisions in writing. The constitutional duty of the Court is discharged by the rendition of its decisions.
The practice of giving the reasons in writing for judgments is of modern origin. And it is discretionary with the Court whether it give an opinion upon pronouncing judgment; and if given, whether it be oral or in writing.
A decision of the Court is its judgment, the opinion is the reasons given for that judgment. The former being entered of record immediately, can only be changed upon a petition for rehearing or a modification. The latter is the prope: ty of the Judges, subject to their revision, correction, and modification, until it is transcribed on the record with the consent of the writer, when it ceases to be the subject of change, except through regular proceedings before the Court by petition.
The records of Courts are under the control of the Judges so far as essential to the proper administration of justice, and this control is beyond the reach of legislation.
The Clerk of a Court, though a constitutional officer, is subject to its orders In the control of the records. The Court cannot, without great abuse of Its powers, take from the Clerk, in any way, the perquisites of his office for copies of opinions and papers on file.
Field, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Terry, C. J. concurring.
At the present term the judgment in this case was reversed, without any opinion being given setting forth the reasons for the [25]reversal. The Appellant now moves the Court to file an opinion, and cites Section 69 of the statute of May 15th, 1854,-amending the Practice Act, which provides that “ all decisions given upon an appeal in any Appellate Court of this State, shall be given in writing, with the reason therefor, and filed with the Clerk of the Court,” except in eases tried in the County Court, on appeal from a Justice’s Court.
The provisions of the statute had not been overlooked when the decision was rendered. It is but one of many provisions embodied in different statutes by which control over the Judiciary Department of the government has been attempted by legislation. To accede to it any obligatory force, would be to sanction a most palpable encroachment upon the independence of this department. If the power of the Legislature to prescribe the mode and manner in -which the Judiciary shall discharge their official duties be once recognized, there will he no limit to the dependence of the latter. If the Legislature can require the reasons of our decisions to be stated in writing, it can forbid their statement in writing, and enforce their oral announcement, or prescribe the paper upon which they shall be written, and the ink which shall be used. And yet no sane man will justify any such absurd pretension, but where is the limit to this power if its exercise in any particular be admitted ?
The truth is, no such power can exist in the Legislative Department, or be sanctioned by any Court which has the least respect for its own dignity and independence. In its own sphere of duties, this Court cannot be trammeled by any legislative restrictions. Its constitutional duty is discharged by the rendition of decisions. The Legislature can no more require this Court to state, the reasons of its decisions, than this Court can require, for the validity of the statutes, that the Legislature shall accompany them with the reasons for their enactment. The principles of law settled, are to be extracted from the records of the cases in which the decisions are rendered. The reports are full of adjudged cases, in which opinions were never delivered. The facts are stated by the Reporter, with the points arising thereon, and are followed by the judgments rendered, and yet no one ever doubted that the Courts, in the instances mentioned, were discharging their entire constitutional obligations. (See, by way
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)