Does a fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Maita, C074872 (Cal. App. 2018):
In Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [147 L.Ed.2d 435], the United States Supreme Court stated that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." (Id. at p. 490 [147 L.Ed.2d p. 455].) Defendant cites People v. Lo
Page 10
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Is a fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to the jury? (California, United States of America)
Does a fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum for assault have to be submitted to a jury? (California, United States of America)
Can a finding of guilty of murder be reconciled with a finding that the facts of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will a jury interpret the instructions of a jury as permitting a conviction on a standard less than beyond beyond beyond the reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for establishing that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the absence of lingering doubt from a recitation of evidence the defense offered in an attempt to raise reasonable doubt raise a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for proving the essential elements of a crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Can a reasonable trier of fact have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the jury need to find all the elements of the crimes to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard for determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
