How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask atluriram Your Own Question

atluriram
atluriram, Professor
Category: Homework
Satisfied Customers: 533
Experience:  MASTER OF COMMERCE, BACHELOR OF LAWS, COMPANY SECRETARY QUALIFICATIONS
22289965
Type Your Homework Question Here...
atluriram is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Review the Capstone case State v. Reynolds. What is the issue

This answer was rated:

Review the Capstone case State v. Reynolds. What is the issue the court had to decide? What was the court’s ruling and rationale? Do you agree with the court? Why, or why not?


written response question should contain a minimum 200-300 word response.
b.Spelling and grammar will impact your grade. Make certain to proofread each written response carefully before clicking on the submit button.
c.Make certain that all of your sources (including your textbook) are referenced at the end of the written response and that directly quoted information within your written response is cited to show the difference between your ideas and the exact words of your sources.
d.General encyclopedias are prohibited sources. They are NOT to be used.

Examples of prohibited sources include, but are not limited to, Wikipedia, Encarta, and World Book.
e.It is suggested (although not required) that these references and citations be put in APA Style because you will be using this style in other papers, projects, case studies, and article reviews.

atluriram :

I am interested on the assignment. What is the approximate date of delivery of this assignment

atluriram :

with regards

atluriram :

atluri ramesh

JACUSTOMER-5of96won- :

I need to have this assignment by tomorrow.

atluriram :

Sir/madam

atluriram :

I herewith submit the answer

atluriram :

with regards

atluriram :

atluri ramesh

atluriram :

------------------

atluriram :

Review the Capstone case State v. Reynolds. What is the issue the court had to decide? What was the court’s ruling and rationale? Do you agree with the court? Why, or why not?

 

CASE DETAILS

State v. Reynolds 138 N.H. 519 (1994)

The State of New Hampshire v. Anne Marie Reynolds

Case No. 93-492

Crime No. RSA 651: 20 (1986)

Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1993

Judgment decided : May 24, 1994

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

On the date of crime of Annie Marie Reynolds, there was law that permitted the prisoners to make petition of sentence suspension for every two years. Being a prisoner, Reynolds filed petition during January, 1990. Unfortunately she could not get success. During 1992, the old law amended which was effective from January 1, 1993 and it indicated that presentation of such petition of sentence suspension for every four years in respect of violent offenders like Reynolds. Reynolds again submitted the petition in 1993. But the State objected. Reynolds made argument that suspension of petition may cause violation of Article 23 of New Hampshire Constitution. In fact is such petition is suspended, it lead to violation of state and federal constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws. Reynolds further argued that new law to her petition would violate part I, article 23 of the constitution.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court transferred the petition without ruling as the suspension of defendant’s petition may violate the state and federal constitution that are against ex post facto laws. The court opined that the holding of the application of the new law to Reynolds petition would violate part I and Article 23 as it reduces the frequency of opportunities to the violent offenders. Hence an opportunity is to be given, the petition cannot be suspended. Such suspension of petition may cause the prisoner to stay more time in punishment. It is also correct that retrospective application of new law to Reynolds’ petition also cause delay and violation of part I, Article 23. The Court considered and declared that retrospective application of new law to Reynolds’ petition would violate part I, article 23 against ex post facto laws. Hence the defendant argument is found correct.

FINDINGS

The Supreme Court contention is correct and defendant’s pleadings are acceptable as the suspension of petition may violate Part 1 and Article 23 which is against ex post facto laws. The state’s arguments are not valid about the continuous punishment and payroll. Hence the Supreme Court hold the case in order to avoid violation of part 1, article 23. The expost facto laws should not cause the defendant to stay more time with punishment. Therefore Supreme Court judgment is correct.

 

REFERENCE :

 

  1. http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/2426/2484569/CJ240_Ch03.pdf
  2. http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=NHCASE&cite=642+A.2d+1368

 

 

atluriram :

sir/madam

atluriram :

You can also use this link

atluriram :

http://www.mediafire.com/?5z4uawfofiwn7i4

atluriram :

with regards

atluriram :

atluri ramesh

atluriram and 5 other Homework Specialists are ready to help you

Related Homework Questions