DOCSLIB.ORG

Summary of State Legislation Regarding Maximum Penalty for Gross Misdemeanor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Summary of Selected State Legislation Regarding Maximum Penalty for Gross Misdemeanor (current as of 03/06/2013) Angela D. Morrison States that Set the Maximum Penalty at 364 Days or Fewer State Statute/Code Statutory Language Notes Section AZ Ariz. Rev. Stat. A. A sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor shall No gross misdemeanor but various levels of Ann. § 13- be for a definite term to be served other than a place misdemeanors with class 1 carrying the 707(A) within custody of the state department of corrections. greatest penalty. The court shall fix the term of imprisonment within the following maximum limitations: 1. For a class 1 misdemeanor, six months. 2. For a class 2 misdemeanor, four months. 3. For a class 3 misdemeanor, thirty days. ID Idaho Code (1) Except in cases where a different punishment is No gross misdemeanor. Maximum term of Ann. § 18- prescribed in this code, every offense declared to be a imprisonment for misdemeanor 6 months. 113(1) misdemeanor, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both. OH Ohio Rev. Code [I]f the sentencing court imposing a sentence upon an No gross misdemeanor. Maximum term of Ann. § 2929.24 offender for a misdemeanor elects or is required to imprisonment for various degrees of impose a jail term on the offender pursuant to this misdemeanors range from 180 days to 30 days. chapter, the court shall impose a definite jail term that shall be one of the following: (1) For a misdemeanor of the first degree, not more than one hundred eighty days; (2) For a misdemeanor of the second degree, not more than ninety days; (3) For a misdemeanor of the third degree, not more than sixty days; (4) For a misdemeanor of the fourth degree, not more than thirty days. 1 State Statute/Code Statutory Language Notes Section WA RCW § Gross misdemeanor. Every person convicted of a gross The Washington Legislature made a specific 9A.20.021(2) misdemeanor defined in Title 9A RCW shall be finding regarding the impact of a one year punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a sentence on immigrants: “The legislature finds maximum term fixed by the court of up to three hundred that a maximum sentence by a court in the state sixty-four days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the of Washington for a gross misdemeanor can, court of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both under federal law, result in the automatic such imprisonment and fine. deportation of a person who has lawfully immigrated to the United States, is a victim of domestic violence or a political refugee, even when all or part of the sentence to total confinement is suspended. The legislature further finds that this is a disproportionate outcome, when compared to a person who has been convicted of certain felonies which, under F-2 the state's determinate sentencing law, must be sentenced to less than one year and, hence, either have no impact on that person's residency status or will provide that person an opportunity to be heard in immigration proceedings where the court will determine whether deportation is appropriate. Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to cure this inequity by reducing the maximum sentence for a gross misdemeanor by one day.” [2011 c 96 § 1.] WI W.S.A § (a) For a Class A misdemeanor, a fine not to exceed No gross misdemeanor but various levels of 939.51(3)(a) $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 9 months, or misdemeanors with class A carrying the both. greatest penalty. 2 States that Set the Maximum Penalty at 365 Days/One Year or Less State Statute/Code Section Statutory Language Notes AK Alaska Stat. Ann. § (a) A defendant convicted of a class A misdemeanor No gross misdemeanor but 12.55.135(a) may be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of various levels of misdemeanors not more than one year. with class A carrying the greatest penalty. MO Mo. Ann. Stat. § 3. A crime is a “misdemeanor” if it is so designated or if No gross misdemeanor but 556.016(3) persons convicted thereof may be sentenced to misdemeanors are crimes imprisonment for a term of which the maximum is one punishable less than one year. year or less. NE Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28- Class I misdemeanor----- No gross misdemeanor but 106(1) Maximum--not more than one year various levels of misdemeanors imprisonment, or one thousand dollars with class I carrying the greatest fine, or both penalty. Minimum--none F-3 NH N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § (a) A class A misdemeanor is any crime so designated 625:9 by statute within or outside this code and any crime defined outside of this code for which the maximum penalty, exclusive of fine, is imprisonment not in excess of one year. NM N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-1-6 B. A crime is a misdemeanor if it is so designated by No gross misdemeanor but (B) law or if upon conviction thereof a sentence of misdemeanors are crimes imprisonment in excess of six months but less than one punishable less than one year year is authorized. and more than six months. NY N.Y. Penal Law § 70.15 1. Class A misdemeanor. A sentence of imprisonment No gross misdemeanor but (1) (McKinney) for a class A misdemeanor shall be a definite sentence. various levels of misdemeanors When such a sentence is imposed the term shall be fixed with class A carrying the by the court, and shall not exceed one year greatest penalty. ND N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 5. Class A misdemeanor, for which a maximum penalty No gross misdemeanor but 12.1-32-01(5) of one year's imprisonment, a fine of two thousand various levels of misdemeanors dollars, or both, may be imposed. with class A carrying the greatest penalty. 3 State Statute/Code Section Statutory Language Notes OK Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § [E]very offense declared to be a misdemeanor is No gross misdemeanor but 10 punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not misdemeanors are crimes exceeding one (1) year or by a fine not exceeding Five punishable by not in excess of Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or both such fine and one year. imprisonment. OR Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § Sentences for misdemeanors shall be for a definite term. No gross misdemeanor but 161.615 The court shall fix the term of imprisonment within the various levels of misdemeanors following maximum limitations: with class A, carrying the (1) For a Class A misdemeanor, 1 year. greatest penalty. (2) For a Class B misdemeanor, 6 months. (3) For a Class C misdemeanor, 30 days. (4) For an unclassified misdemeanor, as provided in the statute defining the crime. RI R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § [A]ny criminal offense which may be punishable by No gross misdemeanor but 11-1-2 imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or by a misdemeanors are crimes F-4 fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or punishable by not in excess one both, is declared to be a misdemeanor[.] year. Penalty set by individual criminal statute defining crime. SD S.D.C.L. § 22-6-2 Misdemeanors are divided into two classes which are No gross misdemeanor but distinguished from each other by the following various levels of misdemeanors maximum penalties which are authorized upon with class 1 carrying the greatest conviction: penalty. (1) Class 1 misdemeanor: one year imprisonment in a county jail or two thousand dollars fine, or both . TN T.C.A. § 39-11-110 [A]ll violations of law punishable by fine or No gross misdemeanor but confinement for less than one (1) year, or both, are misdemeanors are crimes denominated misdemeanors. punishable by less than one year. TX V.T.C.A., Penal Code § An individual adjudged guilty of a Class A No gross misdemeanor but 12.21 misdemeanor shall be punished by: various levels of misdemeanors (1) a fine not to exceed $4,000; with class A carrying the (2) confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year; greatest penalty. or 4 State Statute/Code Section Statutory Language Notes (3) both such fine and confinement. UT U.C.A. 1953 § 76-3- (1) In the case of a class A misdemeanor, for a term not No gross misdemeanor but 204(1) exceeding one year various levels of misdemeanors with class A carrying the greatest penalty. VA VA Code Ann. § 18.2- (a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for No gross misdemeanor but 11(a) not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than various levels of misdemeanors $2,500, either or both with class 1 carrying the greatest penalty. Other F-5 State Statute/Code Section Statutory Language Notes CO Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § (1)(a) Misdemeanors are divided into three classes No gross misdemeanor. 18-1.3-501(1)(a) which are distinguished from one another by the Misdemeanors classified with following penalties which are authorized upon class 1 carrying the highest conviction except as provided in subsection (1.5) of this penalty. Class 1 misdemeanors section: carry at least 6 months Class Minimum Sentence Maximum Sentence imprisonment but not more than Six months Eighteen months 18 months. imprisonment, or five imprisonment, or five 1 hundred dollars fine, or thousand dollars fine, or both both MN N/A N/A Minnesota categorizes crimes as felonies, gross misdemeanors, and misdemeanors based on the fine/monetary penalty.
Recommended publications
  • Day Fines in American Courts

    Day Fines in American Courts

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs NalionallnSlilute ofJustice Day Fines in American Courts: The Staten Island and Milwaukee Experiments sa p c About the National Institute of Justice The National Institute of Justice is the research and development agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, est'~blished to prevent and redu-::e crime and to improve the criminal justice system. Specific mandates established by Congress in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 direct the National Institute of Justice to: III Sponsor special projects and research·and development prugrums that will improve and strengthen lhe criminal justice system and reduce or prevent crime. III Conduct national demonstration projects that employ innovatiYe or promising approaches for improving criminal justice. III Del'e/op new technologies to fight crime and improve criminal justice. III Evaluate the effectiveness oj criminal justice programs ana identify programs that promise' to be successful if continued or repeated. .. Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments as well as private organizations to improve criminal justice. III Carry out research on criminal behavior. II Develop new methods oj crime prevention and reduction of crime and delinquency. The National Institute of Justice has a long history of accomplishments, including the following: .. Basic research on career criminals that led to development of special police and prosecutor units to deal with repeat offenders. III Research that confirmed the link between drugs and crime.
  • Protecting Those Who Blow the Whistle on Government Wrongdoing

    Protecting Those Who Blow the Whistle on Government Wrongdoing

    Statement of Glenn A. Fine Principal Deputy Inspector General, Performing the Duties of the Inspector General, Department of Defense for a Hearing on Protecting Those Who Blow the Whistle on Government Wrongdoing Before the Subcommittee on Government Operations Committee on Oversight and Reform U.S. House of Representatives January 28, 2020 Chairman Connolly, Ranking Member Meadows, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today for this hearing on the contributions of federal whistleblowers and the need to protect them from reprisal. I. INTRODUCTION My testimony will focus on the important work of the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) relating to whistleblowers. I am the DoD Principal Deputy Inspector General, Performing the Duties of the Inspector General, and have been serving as the head of the DoD OIG for over 4 years. Prior to this position, in addition to working as an attorney in private practice, I was the Inspector General of the Department of Justice for 11 years, from 2000 to 2011. In my testimony today, I will discuss the significant contributions of whistleblowers, why the protection of whistleblowers is so important, how the DoD OIG evaluates and investigates whistleblower disclosures and complaints of reprisal, and several best practices we have implemented at the DoD OIG to improve our timeliness and efficiency in whistleblower investigations. Specifically, my testimony discusses: • the mission and responsibilities of the DoD OIG, • the importance of whistleblowers and the need to protect them from reprisal, • examples of cases resulting from whistleblower disclosures, • the DoD OIG’s investigative processes, • best practices that the DoD OIG has implemented to improve the timeliness and efficiency of reprisal investigations, 1 • the need for DoD management to take timely corrective action on substantiated whistleblower reprisal investigations, and • the need for adequate resources to handle these important responsibilities.
  • 9.04 General Provisions--Penalties

    9.04 General Provisions--Penalties

    Chapter 9.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS--PENALTIES Sections: 9.04.010 Short title. 9.04.020 Applicability of title. 9.04.030 Crime classifications. 9.04.040 Limitation of actions. 9.04.050 Criminal attempt. 9.04.060 Aiding and abetting. 9.04.070 Each day a separate violation. 9.04.080 Description of offense. 9.04.010 Short title. This title, hereinafter referred to as "this code" shall be known and may be cited as the Benton City criminal code and shall become effective as provided in the ordinance codified in this title. (Ord. 325, 1978.) 9.04.020 Applicability of title. A. The provisions of this code shall apply to any offense which is defined in this code or the general ordinances, committed on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title, unless otherwise expressly provided or unless the context otherwise requires. B. The provisions of this code do not apply to nor govern the construction of any punishment for any offense committed prior to the effective date of this code. Such an offense shall be construed and punished according to the provisions of law existing at the time of the commission thereof in the same manner as if this code had not been enacted. (Ord. 325, 1978.) 9.04.030 Crime classifications. A. A crime is a gross misdemeanor when so designated in this code or by other ordinance of the city. A gross misdemeanor is punishable upon conviction thereof by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in jail for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
  • Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range Office of the Attorney General 2

    Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range Office of the Attorney General 2

    PENAL CODE BYOFFENSES PUNISHMENT RANGE Including Updates From the 85th Legislative Session REV 3/18 Table of Contents PUNISHMENT BY OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 2 PENALTIES FOR REPEAT AND HABITUAL OFFENDERS .......................................................... 4 EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES ................................................................................................... 7 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 4 ................................................................................................. 8 INCHOATE OFFENSES ........................................................................................................... 8 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 5 ............................................................................................... 11 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ....................................................................................... 11 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 6 ............................................................................................... 18 OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY ......................................................................................... 18 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 7 ............................................................................................... 20 OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY .......................................................................................... 20 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 8 ..............................................................................................
  • Misdemeanors

    Misdemeanors

    MISDEMEANORS STUDY ON RECORD RETENTION, AVAILABILITY AND ACCESS OF RECORDS REGARDING FINE- ONLY MISDEMEANORS As directed by SB 47, 85th Legislature (Due 1/1/19) Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Class C Misdemeanor Records For “Children Under Age 18” ................................................................... 4 Data Limitations ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Survey Results .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Access and Availability .............................................................................................................................. 4 Adult Records ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Records Access and Availability Policy .................................................................................................. 6 Records “Related to a Child
  • Mens Rea in Minnesota and the Model Penal Code Ted Sampsell-Jones William Mitchell College of Law, Ted.Sampselljones@Wmitchell.Edu

    Mens Rea in Minnesota and the Model Penal Code Ted Sampsell-Jones William Mitchell College of Law, [email protected]

    Mitchell Hamline School of Law Mitchell Hamline Open Access Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Mitchell Hamline Events Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward 2013 Mens Rea in Minnesota and the Model Penal Code Ted Sampsell-Jones William Mitchell College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/symposium-minnesota- criminal-code Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Sampsell-Jones, Ted, "Mens Rea in Minnesota and the Model Penal Code" (2013). Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward. Paper 4. http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/symposium-minnesota-criminal-code/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mitchell Hamline Events at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Symposium: 50th Anniversary of the Minnesota Criminal Code-Looking Back and Looking Forward by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DRAFT Mens Rea in Minnesota and the Model Penal Code Ted Sampsell-Jones I. Introduction When Minnesota engaged in the great reform and recodification effort that led to the Criminal Code of 1963, it was part of a nationwide reform movement. That movement was spurred in large part by the American Law Institute and its Model Penal Code. The Minnesota drafters were influenced by the MPC, and at least in some areas, adopted MPC recommendations. The MPC’s most significant innovation was in the law of mens rea—the body of law concerning the mental state or “guilty mind” necessary for criminal liability.
  • House Bill Report Hb 1499

    House Bill Report Hb 1499

    HOUSE BILL REPORT HB 1499 As Reported by House Committee On: Public Safety Title: An act relating to vulnerable adults. Brief Description: Concerning vulnerable adults. Sponsors: Representatives Goodman, Jinkins, Johnson, Orwall, Appleton, Lytton and Tharinger. Brief History: Committee Activity: Public Safety: 1/28/15, 1/30/15 [DPS], 1/19/16, 1/22/16 [DP3S]; General Government & Information Technology: 2/20/15, 2/24/15 [DP2S(w/o sub PS)]. Brief Summary of Third Substitute Bill Makes it a Criminal Mistreatment offense when a person, with criminal negligence (instead of recklessly) withholds the basic necessities of life from a child or dependent person. Creates the crime of Theft from a Vulnerable Adult in the first and second degree. Adds the crimes of Criminal Mistreatment and Theft from a Vulnerable Adult to the list of crimes against persons. Limits the statute of limitations for the crime of Theft from a Vulnerable Adult to six years. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Majority Report: The third substitute bill be substituted therefor and the third substitute bill do pass. Signed by 7 members: Representatives Goodman, Chair; Orwall, Vice Chair; Klippert, Ranking Minority Member; Appleton, Griffey, Moscoso and Wilson. Staff: Yvonne Walker (786-7841). Background: –––––––––––––––––––––– This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent. House Bill Report - 1 - HB 1499 Criminal Mistreatment. A person commits Criminal Mistreatment if he or she: is the parent of a child, is a person entrusted with the physical custody of a child or dependent person, or is employed to provide a child or dependent person with the basic necessities of life; and withholds the basic necessities of life from the child or dependent person.
  • Alternatives to Custodial Supervision: the Day Fine

    Alternatives to Custodial Supervision: the Day Fine

    Document Title: Alternatives to Custodial Supervision: The Day Fine Author(s): Edwin W. Zedlewski Document No.: NCJ 230401 Date Received: May 2010 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this National Institute of Justice (NIJ) produced report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 1 Alternatives to Custodial Supervision: The Day Fine Edwin W. Zedlewski April 2010 NCJ 230401 Discussion Paper Alternatives to Custodial Supervision: The Day Fine Edwin W. Zedlewski April 2010 NCJ 230401 The opinions and conclusions expressed in this document are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice. Alternatives to Custodial Supervision: The Day Fine Introduction Corrections populations in the U.S. have risen at alarming rates. From 1990 to 2007, probation populations rose 61 percent, with 4.3 million persons on probation as of December 31, 2007 (Bonczar and Glaze, 1999, 2008). Parole populations have risen 55 percent to a level of 824,000 persons (Bonczar and Glaze, 1999, 2008). Incarceration sentences have expanded by even greater amounts — jail populations rose 93 percent (to 780,000), and prison populations rose 311 percent (to 2.3 million inmates) over the same interval (Beck and Gilliard, 1996; Sabol and West, 2008) More than 7.2 million persons are under correctional supervision today (Bonczar and Glaze, 2008).
  • Compounding Crimes: Time for Enforcement Merek Evan Lipson

    Compounding Crimes: Time for Enforcement Merek Evan Lipson

    Hastings Law Journal Volume 27 | Issue 1 Article 5 1-1975 Compounding Crimes: Time for Enforcement Merek Evan Lipson Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Merek Evan Lipson, Compounding Crimes: Time for Enforcement, 27 Hastings L.J. 175 (1975). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol27/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPOUNDING CRIMES: TIME FOR ENFORCEMENT? Compounding is a largely obscure part of American criminal law, and compounding statutes have become dusty weapons in the prosecu- tor's arsenal. An examination of this crime reveals few recently re- ported cases. Its formative case law evolved primarily during the nine- teenth and early twentieth centuries. As a result, one might expect to find that few states still retain compounding provisions in their stat- ute books. The truth, however, is quite to the contrary: compounding laws can be found in forty-five states.1 This note will define the compounding of crimes, offer a brief re- view of its nature and development to provide perspective, and distin- guish it from related crimes. It will analyze current American com- pounding law, explore why enforcement of compounding laws is dis- favored, and suggest that more vigorous enforcement may be appropri- ate, especially as a weapon against white collar crime.
  • STC 7.7 Arson, Burning, Mischief, Damage to Property Mar. 8, 1993 7.7.2

    STC 7.7 Arson, Burning, Mischief, Damage to Property Mar. 8, 1993 7.7.2

    TITLE 7. PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS, AND WELFARE Chapter 7.7 ARSON, RECKLESS BURNING, MALICIOUS MISCHIEF, AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY Sections: 7.7.1 Definitions. 7.7.2 Arson in the First Degree. 7.7.3 Arson in the Second Degree. 7.7.4 Reckless Burning in the First Degree. 7.7.5 Reckless Burning in the Second Degree. 7.7.6 Reckless Burning — Defense. 7.7.7 Malicious Mischief in the First Degree. 7.7.8 Malicious Mischief in the Second Degree. 7.7.9 Malicious Mischief in the Third Degree. 7.7.10 Desecration of Religious Sites. 7.7.11 Cutting Timber without a Permit. 7.7.12 Defacing Official Signs, Landmarks, or Navigation Markers. 7.7.13 Flag Desecration. 7.7.14 Failure to Control or Report a Fire. 7.7.15 Interference with Fishing Boats, Gear, or Fish. 7.7.16 Cutting Fence. 7.7.17 Removal of Official Landmarks, Navigation Marks, etc. 7.7.18 Firing Timber. 7.7.1. Definitions. (a) For the purpose of this chapter, as now or hereinafter amended, unless the context indicates otherwise: (1) “Building” has the definition in §7.1.5(e), and where a building consists of two or more units separately secured or occupied, each unit shall not be treated as a separate building. (2) “Damages” in addition to its ordinary meaning includes any charring, scorching, burning, or breaking, or agricultural or industrial sabotage and shall include any diminution in the value of any property as a consequence of an act. (b) To constitute arson it shall not be necessary that a person other than the actor should have had ownership in the building or structure damaged or set on fire.
  • Damages Surprisingly Victims?

    Damages Surprisingly Victims?

    10 Damages Personal Injury [10.10] What remedy does (and should) the legal system provide to tort victims? Although they may occasionally obtain injunctions intended to prevent ongoing harm, almost all successful tort claimants obtain money damages.’ A surprisingly large number of difficult and contested issues arise, however, in determining just how much money should be awarded. This chapter explores those issues. Part of the problem is factual uncertainty, especially, but not only, with respect to losses that will occur in the future, that is, after the trial or settlement of the case. But, in addition, there are fundamental legal questions at issue that centrally arise from disputes about the underlying reasons for awarding tort damages in the first place; whether tort law is ultimately compensatory, a deterrent or concerned with corrective justice is discussed in Chapter 1. The focus of this chapter will be on damages for bodily injury (and death). The material is organised in this way. First, the question of whether damages should be paid in a lump sum or periodically is addressed. Secondly, consideration is given to the strength of the proof plaintiffs must offer in order successfully to claim their damages. 2 So, The focus then shifts to the specific types of recoveries that are allowed. thirdly, considerable attention is given to what are typically termed pecuniary losses — (a) expenses incurred (or to be incurred) because of the harm the tortfeasor has imposed on the victim and (b) the victim’s lost income or lost earning power. Fourthly, compensatory awards for non-pecuniary losses (for example, pain and suffering) are explored.
  • Gross Misdemeanor Sentencing

    Gross Misdemeanor Sentencing

    GROSS MISDEMEANOR SENTENCING Reform Gross Misdemeanor Sentencing What is the issue? Under Minnesota state law, the maximum sentence for a gross misdemeanor is 365 days. This conflicts with federal immigration law, which defines an offense that carries a sentence of 365 days or more as an aravated felony. Why is this a problem? Minnesota has deemed certain offenses to be gross misdemeanors, yet here the federal law overrides the state’s intent. The difference between the state and federal definitions creates an inconsistency for people in Minnesota. Two people may be convicted of the same gross misdemeanor in Minnesota, but one can be sentenced to 364 days while the other is sentenced to 365 days. Yet the person with the 365-day sentence may face virtually automatic deportation if they are a non-citizen because federal immigration law considers the offense a felony. In contrast, the person with the 364-day sentence may face immigration problems, but will likely have more options, because federal immigration law draws the line at 365 days. What is the solution? HF 614/SF 901 would reduce the maximum sentence for Minnesota gross misdemeanors by one day to 364 days, thereby resolving this inconsistency and ensuring that the state’s policy- making intent is met. It will make sure that the immigration consequences of a gross misdemeanor will not differ based on a sentence that is one day longer. It will also provide clarity to defendants, attorneys and courts when assessing immigration consequences of a criminal conviction in Minnesota. Contact ACLU-MN Policy Director Julia Decker at [email protected] or visit https://www.aclu-mn.org/mnleg-2021 for more information about our legislative priorities..