Connecticut Supreme Court History
Volume II (2007)

STATE v. DANFORTH

Abstract

State v. Danforth (1819) was, and remains, a significant case in this state’s Supreme Court history. Within the first year of its existence as a constitutionally independent department of government, the Court found itself facing a question about the nature of its constitutional power. A majority of the Court asserted a broad scope, which encompassed the power to declare and enforce common law crimes. It did so despite the just-as-newly adopted constitutional separation of powers. According to the dissent, however, the very separation of powers which provided for the Supreme Court’s independence would have eliminated a power such as the seemingly legislative power to declare crimes and their punishments. In rejecting this understanding, the Court majority instead determined that it would rely on the historical practice and continue to exercise the common law power regarding crimes.

Danforth should remain central to our understanding of Supreme Court history because it remains the earliest and likely among the most prominent examples of the very process of determining the scope of the Court’s constitutional power—the “Judicial power of the State.” Constitutional power is not static, but evolves over time. A major factor in this evolution is the actual exercise of power by governmental institutions, including courts. How the exercise of power, within the context of historical practices and constitutional prescriptions, actually manifests will not always be certain. In the case of common law power to declare and punish crimes, however, we in the twenty-first century can look back at the evolution of power and see, now, that a power once thought essential exists no more. Because of this evolutionary process, Danforth is an important part of the complete story of the development of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

The note regarding Danforth begins with a description of the case and details the majority and dissenting opinions. It then further examines the nature of the judicial power at issue in the case, regarding the common law power to declare crimes. It concludes with an assessment, which sets in broader context the historical significance of the case. Danforth no longer survives as a viable legal precedent for the common law power to declare crimes, but it remains significant because it illustrates processes that establish and define judicial power.
 

Connecticut Supreme Court History, Vol. II | Publications