Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Hurtado v. California , 110 U.S. 516 (1884), [ 1 ] was a landmark case [ 2 ] [ 3 ] decided by the United States Supreme Court that allowed state governments , as distinguished from the federal government , to avoid using grand juries in criminal prosecutions.
The Melbourne Magistrates' Court.In Victoria, Australia, all summary offences are heard in the Magistrates' Court. A summary offence or petty offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, [1] [2] [3] without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment (required for an indictable offence).
Summary conviction, convicting an accused without giving him the benefit of a jury trial and/or indictment. Summary court-martial, the lowest in the rank of courts-martial, conducted before one commissioned officer, limited in jurisdiction to offenses of a minor or petty nature of which enlisted men, not commissioned officers, stand accused.
California Penal Code section 15 defines a "crime" or "public offense" as "an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is annexed, upon conviction, any of the following punishments: Death; Imprisonment; Fine; Removal from office; or,
The Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49) gives a general power of appeal against an adjudication on conviction (but not on plea of guilty) to imprisonment without the option of a fine, whether as punishment for an offence or for failure to do or abstaining from doing any act, other than compliance with an order to pay money or ...
When an enactment in the United Kingdom creates an offence, it generally specifies what penalties apply on summary conviction or on conviction on indictment.In relation to England and Wales, the first expression refers to a trial in a magistrates' court without a jury before a district judge or a panel of magistrates, while the latter refers to a trial in the Crown Court by jury.
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime.
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law.