In re Winship
In re Winship | |
---|---|
| |
Argued January 20, 1970 Decided March 31, 1970 | |
Full case name | In the Matter of Samuel Winship, Appellant |
Citations |
90 S. Ct. 1068; 25 L. Ed. 2d 368; 51 O.O.2d 323 |
Prior history | 91 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (App. Div. 1968), aff'd, 247 N.E.2d. 253 (N.Y. 1969). |
Holding | |
The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause requires that every element of a criminal offense be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, instead of the preponderance of the evidence standard used heretofore in juvenile court. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Brennan, joined by Douglas, Harlan, White, Marshall |
Concurrence | Harlan |
Dissent | Burger, joined by Stewart |
Dissent | Black |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. XIV |
Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that "the Due Process clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged."[1]:17 It established this burden in all cases in all states (constitutional case).[1]:17 The decision did not specify which facts constitute the charged crime.[1]:17
When a juvenile is charged with an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult, every element of the offense must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not preponderance of the evidence.[2] The case has come to stand for a broader proposition, however: in a criminal prosecution, every essential element of the offense must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477 (2000); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278 (1993).[3]
See also
References
- 1 2 3 Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1,
- ↑ Varat, J.D. et al. Constitutional Law Cases and Materials, Concise Thirteenth Edition. Foundation Press, New York, NY: 2009, p. 356
- ↑ Varat, p. 357