About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

25 Md. L. Rev. 227 (1965)
The Plea of Nolo Contendere

handle is hein.journals/mllr25 and id is 237 raw text is: Comments and Casenotes THE PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE By THOMAS C. HAYDEN, JR. The twentieth century has seen the revival of the use of the plea of nolo contendere in criminal proceedings' after the plea had fallen into disuse and was apparently headed for oblivion. Generally speaking, the plea of nolo contendere is an implied confession which admits the facts charged in the indictment and thus is similar to a guilty plea. However, the nolo plea admits the facts for the sole purpose of the criminal prosecution. Therefore, unlike a guilty plea, it cannot be used as an admission in a subsequent civil suit. The plea had it origin in the English common law, and the classic statement indicating its characteristics is found in Hawkins: An implied confession is when a defendant, in a case not capital, doth not directly own himself guilty, but in a manner admits it by yielding to the King's mercy, and desiring to submit to a small fine: in which case, if the court think fit to accept of such sub- mission, and make an entry that defendant prosuit se in gratiam regis, without putting him to a direct confession, or plea (which in such cases seems to be left to discretion), the defendant shall not be estopped to plead not guilty to an action for the same fact, as he shall if the entry is quod cognovit indictamentum.' Thus, it seems that in England the plea was originally in the nature of a petition for mercy, and the courts still have a tendency to reduce punishment when a nolo plea is entered.' There is no reported use of the plea in England since 1702,' and the plea has apparently been discarded there. However, the nolo plea has found refuge in America. The use of the plea in this country has not brought about any radical departure from the Hawkins definition, although some problems have arisen concerning the use and effect of the plea. The renaissance of the plea is particularly 1. For a general discussion of the plea, see Annot., 89 A.L.R.2d 540 (1963), supplementing 152 A.L.R. 253 (1944); 14 Am. Jur. Criminal Law § 275 (1938) and 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 425 (1961). 2. HAWKINS, A TREATISE OF THE PLEAS OF THE CROWN 466 (8th ed. 1824) cited in Hudson v. United States, 272 U.S. 451 (1926). 3. See, e.g., Hudson v. United States, 272 U.S. 451 (1926), where the Court states at p. 457: Undoubtedly a court may, in its discretion, mitigate the punishment on a plea of nolo contendere and feel constrained to do so whenever the plea is accepted with the understanding that only a fine is to be imposed. But such a restriction made mandatory upon the court by positive rule of law would only hamper its discretion and curtail the utility of the plea. 4. Regina v. Templeman, 1 Salk 55 (Q.B. 1702), appears to be the last reported use of the plea.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most