- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,350
- Reaction score
- 6,591
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The rule's status in the United States is less clear: many states have abolished it completely, and in 2001 the Supreme Court held that a Tennessee court's retroactive abolition of the rule was constitutional.[2] However, the rule's common law status has been successfully used by defendants to overturn convictions as recently as 2003: the Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld the year and a day rule in the case before it, but simultaneously abolished the rule for any later cases, noting the modern circumstances of homicide cases, in which there is "the specter of a family's being forced to choose between terminating the use of a life-support system and allowing an accused to escape a murder charge" and the court's finding that it is "unjust to permit an assailant to escape punishment because of a convergence of modern medical advances and an archaic rule from the thirteenth century".[3]
In California, the "year and a day" rule has been changed to a "three years and a day" rule.[4] If a death occurs more than three years and one day after the act alleged to have caused it, there is "a rebuttable presumption that the killing was not criminal", but the prosecution may seek to overcome this presumption
NY woman dies after 21 years in coma - CBS News
Reading this story brings a question to my mind. If I inflict harm on you how long should you be allowed to live before complications of the harm I inflicted are no longer considered murder?
For instance, person A stabs person B and punctures a lung. Person B lives and is released and lets even say living a normal life. 5 years later person B does of complications due to the stabbing. Is person A still on the hook for murder? Even after serving time for the assualt? If not 5 years, what about 10? 20? 2? What does everyone think?
I would want to talk to a Dr. to find out more info.Out of curiosity do you think a year and a day is the correct way to go with it?
If one is convicted of a crime, a new charge for the exact same action that one has already been convicted of would appear to be a violation of double jeopardy. A single shot fired by a criminal cannot be both attempted murder AND murder on the same individual. I would think that double jeopardy would also apply to sentencing.
But he wouldn't be retried for the same crime. He would be tried for a different crime, just on the same person
But it's in reference to the exact same action...hence my example of a single shot.
If one is convicted of a crime, a new charge for the exact same action that one has already been convicted of would appear to be a violation of double jeopardy. A single shot fired by a criminal cannot be both attempted murder AND murder on the same individual. I would think that double jeopardy would also apply to sentencing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?