Clarifying ambiguity

Question 1

Three principles that limit punishment

Answer 1

1. Legality - behavior must be criminal at the time of the act
2. Culpability - How much to blame a person. Basically mens rea
3. Proportionality - punishment should fit the crime

Question 2

The Legality Principle

Answer 2

“Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege,” or “no crime without law, no punishment without law.”

A person cannot be convicted and punished unless their behavior was criminal at the time they committed it.

Question 3

The Proportionality Principle

Answer 3

The punishment should fit the crime.

Question 4

The Culpability Principle

Answer 4

The measure of how much a person can be blamed for a crime

Question 5

Ejusdem Generis

Answer 5

The statutory and constitutional construction principle of “ejusdem generis” states that where general words or phrases follow a number of specific words or phrases, the general words are specifically construed as limited and apply only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those expressly mentioned.

Ejusdem generis generally applies to ambiguous items in a list.

For example, if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, and other motor-powered vehicles, a court might use ejusdem generis to hold that such vehicles would not include airplanes, because the list included only land-based transportation.

Question 6

List the methods used to clarify ambiguity

Answer 6

Textual interpretation - ordinary meaning, ejusdem generis, noscitur a sociis

Statutory interpretation

Void for Vagueness

Question 7

Noscitur a Sociis

Answer 7

A rule used to clarify the meaning of ambiguous words by considering the words they are associated with in context.

E.g. in a statute entirely focused on “chemicals” and “toxins” that has a provision banning “other harmful substances,” hot water would not be harmful substance, even though you can burn yourself with hot water.

Question 8

US v Dauray (2000)

Answer 8

Facts: D arrested for possessing multiple CSAM pictures cut out from magazine. Statute prohibits possession of 3+ “matter containing” like books or magazines.

Rule: Statutory interpretation requires courts to try to effectuate legislative intent, but where a law is ambiguous and can be read either way to find guilt/innocence, apply rule of lenity.

Holding: The statute can be read to both support and defeat indictment, so apply rule of lenity. No adequate notice conduct was prohibited.

Use for: Notice, Lenity

Question 9

Keeler v Superior Court (1970)

Answer 9

Facts: D killed fetus when he beat his pregnant ex-wife.

Rule: If a statutory provision is ambiguous, courts must refrain from interposing their own interpretations and adhere to the legislative intent behind the provision. (Note: not all courts follow this.)

Holding: D wins because legislature did not intend homicide to include fetus because in 1850 when statute passed fetus was not considered a human - judges cannot create new crimes in common law.

Use for: Notice, Separation of Powers

Question 10

In Re Banks (1978)

Answer 10

Facts: Man arrested under peeping tom law prohibiting “secretly” watching women.

Rule: A criminal statute is not void for vagueness if it gives fair notice of the criminalized conduct and provides sufficient guidance to judges and defending lawyers. A criminal statute is not void for overbreadth if there is an available interpretation that does not inadvertently criminalize permissible actions.

Holding: Statute does not violate VFV - “secretly” implies “wrongfully,” so secretly watching someone is violating a legitimate expectation of privacy.