The Mathis dissenters predicted that this approach would prove a challenge for lower courts because state law is often unclear about whether statutory language lists alternative elements or alternative means.
United States, the Supreme Court clarified that judges can rely on only the legal “elements” of prior convictions, not the factual “means” the person employed in committing the prior offense. Legislatures often instruct judges to impose harsher punishments on people who have prior criminal convictions-for example, a conviction for a “crime of violence” or for a “crime involving moral turpitude.” But how are judges to determine whether a person has such a conviction? In Mathis v.
0 kommentar(er)
