How has the ex post facto clause been interpreted?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Bocklett, 22 Cal.App.5th 879, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 140 (Cal. App. 2018):
by restraining arbitrary and potentially vindictive legislation. " ( Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994) 511 U.S. 244, 267, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229.) "The ex post facto clause prohibits only those laws that retroactively alter the definition of crimes or increase the punishment for criminal acts. " ( McKee I , supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 1193, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 427, 223 P.3d 566.)
"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
Does the SVP Act's provision for an indeterminate term violate the due process clause, ex post facto clause and double jeopardy clause? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for interpretation of the California Code of Civil Procedure when it comes to the interpretation of statutory interpretation? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the interpretation of a federal agency's interpretation of the California Civil Code? (California, United States of America)
Can a defense interpreter only interpret words of the witness interpreter at trial? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the state ex post facto clause? (California, United States of America)
Is a city's interpretation of a section of the California Civil Code interpreted in the context of an administrative agency's interpretation? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted immunity clauses in witness immunity agreements? (California, United States of America)
Can an interpreter be replaced by a different interpreter? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the equal protection clause in the context of legislative reapportionment litigation? (California, United States of America)
Does the rule against interpreting statutory language "in a manner that would render some part of the statute surplusage" support a different interpretation? (California, United States of America)
