State v. Patnovic
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Layton, J.:
At common law, the repeal of a penal statute containing no saving clause was held to constitute a bar to the prosecution and punishment of a crime already committed in violation of the statute so repealed. 22 C. J. S., Criminal Law, § 27(b)'. And there is a large body of respectable authority which has extended this principle to the extreme lengths of including a case such as this where the statute is not repealed but amended and the amendment purports to increase only the punishment. People v. Lowell, 250 Mich. 349, 230 N. W. 202; In re Medley, 134 U. S. 160, 10 S. Ct. 384, 33 L.…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- MedleySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- United States v. YuginovichSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Sekt v. Justice's CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Murphy v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- People v. LowellMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Pepe v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1961
- State v. BrinkleyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1992
- State v. HaskinsSuperior Court of Delaware · 1987
- State v. HodsdonSuperior Court of Delaware · 1972
- State v. McGonigalSuperior Court of Delaware · 1963
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.