Year and a day rule
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
The year and a day rule is associated with the former common law standard that death could not be legally attributed to acts or omissions that occurred more than a year and a day before the death.
It is elsewhere associated with the minimum sentence for a crime to count as a felony.
The rule and homicide
In English
Certain problems with this rule arise from the advance of medicine. Life support technology can extend the interval between the murderous act and the subsequent death. Application of the year and a day rule prevented murder prosecutions, not because of the merits of the case, but because of the successful intervention of doctors in prolonging life. Additionally, advances in forensic medicine may assist the court to determine that an act was a cause of death even though it was carried out fairly far in the past.
England and Wales, Northern Ireland
The rule was abolished by the
The permission of the Attorney General for England and Wales or Attorney General for Northern Ireland is required for any prosecution in which it is alleged that the death occurred more than three years after the causative act, or when the offender has previously been convicted of an offence in connection with the death.
New Zealand
New Zealand had a year and a day rule until it was abolished unanimously in March 2018.[1]
United States
- In 1891, the rule was upheld at the federal level in Ball v. United States.[2]
- In 1987, the
- In 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Tennessee court's retroactive abolition of the rule was constitutional in Rogers v. Tennessee, since the ex post facto clause only prohibits an ex post facto law from being passed, but does not prohibit a judicial organ from revising the common law in an ex post facto manner.[2]
The rule's common law status has been successfully used by defendants to overturn convictions as recently as 2003: the
In
In 2014, the D.C. rule (as it existed in 1981) was one of the reasons given for why
Hong Kong
The rule was abolished in 2000 by section 33C of the Offences against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212).[9]
Where the rule is not applied to homicide
Jurisdictions where the rule has never applied
The following countries are listed in the Report on the Year and a Day Rule in Homicide with the observation that "the rule has never applied":[5]
- Austria
- France
- Germany
- Greece
- Italy
- Poland
- Scotland
- The report also said "It was held in H.M. Advocate v Stewart that the Crown may be barred from proceeding with a trial if it would be oppressive for them to do so in view of the passage of time since the discovery of the offence."
- South Africa
Jurisdictions where the rule has been abolished
- England and Wales, Northern Ireland
- See the main introduction above.
- Republic of Ireland
- The rule was abolished "for all purposes" including "for the purposes of offences involving the death of a person, and for the purpose of determining whether a person committed suicide" by the section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999.[10]
- Hong Kong
- The rule was abolished "for all purposes" in Hong Kong by section 33C of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, which is added by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance 2000 following the recommendation of the
As a sentence for felons
A year and a day is a minimum incarceration sentence for
See also
References
- Stuff.co.nz. March 19, 2018. Archivedfrom the original on March 7, 2019.
- ^ Washington Post. Retrieved 2015-01-03.
- ^ United States v. Jackson, 520 A.2d 1211, 1213 (D.C. App. 1987) ("We also conclude that abrogation of the common law year and a day rule is overdue and properly accomplished by judicial opinion, and leave it to the legislature to determine if a time limitation on death should exist in the District of Columbia other than the limitations arising from the requirements of due process of law and of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of causation.").
- ^ State v. Picotte, 2003 Wisc. 42, ¶ 35 (2003). Summarized in "Supreme Court Digest: Homicide - Year-and-a-Day Rule Abrogated". Wisconsin Lawyer. 76 (7). Madison, Wisconsin: State Bar of Wisconsin. July 2003.
- ^ a b Report on the Year and a Day Rule in Homicide, The Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong, June 1997.
- ^ "California Penal Code § 194". California Office of Legislative Counse. 1 January 1997. Retrieved 22 March 2021.
- ^ "California Penal Code § 4500". California Office of Legislative Counsel. 1986. Retrieved 22 March 2021.
- ^ Wofford, Taylor (August 9, 2014). "Will John Hinckley Jr. Face Murder Charges for the 'Delayed Death' of James Brady?". Newsweek. Retrieved February 28, 2015.
- ^ "STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ORDINANCE 2000".
- ^ Criminal Justice Act 1999, s. 38: Abolition of “year and a day” rule (No. 10 of 1999, s. 38). Enacted on 26 May 1999. Act of the Oireachtas. Retrieved from Irish Statute Book.
- ^ Criminal Law in Hong Kong [Michael Jackson, pub. Hong Kong University Press 2003]
- ^ Cap. 212 § 33C
- ^ "18 U.S. Code § 3624 - Release of a prisoner". Title 18 of the United States Code – via cornell.edu.
...a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year ... may receive credit toward the service of the prisoner's sentence ... subject to determination by the Bureau of Prisons that, during that year, the prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations.
- ^ Bistrong, Richard (2016-07-19). "Richard Bistrong: Why do judges sentence defendants to 'a year and a day' in prison? | The FCPA Blog". fcpablog.com. Retrieved 2021-02-10.
External links
- Criminal Law: Eighth Edition, Smith & Hogan, Butterworths, ISBN 0-406-08187-5
- Text of the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.