Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 44
Now, here's the question, when its a case of violation of firearms law, not a murder or assault, but a technical violation of law, what standard would be applied by the court?
Is there a general rule or is it entirely on a case by case basis?
|
Beyond reasonable doubt will be the the standard of proof in that criminal matter. That is just the standard for a burden in evaluating evidence. In civil matters, the ordinary standard will be a preponderence of the evidence, a 50.1% sort of burden. In specific sorts of civil matters, the burden can be clear and convincing, something between the prior two.
Your question used the word "technical". Are you also asking about the state of mind needed to find guilt? Sometimes liability will be strict, meaning that you need not intend to transgress to be found guilty. If my rifle barrel is 15.95 inches long and I have no stamp, but thought it was 16.1, I think I have a problem despite my pure heart. If I also have an angled forward grip, BATF may put me on double secret probation.
Other laws may require some intent. To find me guilty of menacing, I don't see how any jurisdiction could impose strict liability, for instance, finding me guilty for having such an ugly face that people feel a menace despite my pure heart.
The standards for testing the constitutionality of a challenged law are a different thing yet again. I think you would more accurately view them as analytical frameworks than threshholds for weighing simple factual conclusions.