Court Opinion

ID: 9837028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:16:03.968268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.929199
License: Public Domain

GIERKE, Judge
(concurring):
I agree with the majority opinion. I write separately, however, to suggest an additional basis for arriving at the same conclusion.
In deciding whether the savings clause applies, a number of federal courts have distinguished between substantive and procedural amendments to criminal statutes. See United States v. Breier, 813 F.2d 212, 216 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Mechem, 509 F.2d 1193, 1196 (10th Cir.1975); United States v. Blue Sea Line, 553 F.2d 445, 449 (5th Cir. 1977). These decisions all recognize that the savings clause applies only to substantive changes in the law.
In my view, the amendment of Article 120 has both substantive and procedural aspects. It is substantive because it changes the offense from a strict liability offense to one where lack of knowledge of the victim’s age could be exculpatory. It is procedural because it permits an accused to raise an affirmative defense, allocates the burden of proof, and establishes the quantum of proof.
I believe that the predominant purpose of the amendment was substantive. Accordingly, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the savings clause is applicable to this case, and that appellant’s guilty pleas were provident.