Court Opinion

ID: 9507700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:24:45.337526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:22.693152
License: Public Domain

THE HONORABLE JOHN M. McCARVEL, DISTRICT JUDGE, sitting in place of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HAS-WELL, concurring in JUDGE JOSEPH B. GARY’S dissent:
The Defendant relies on two United States Supreme Court decisions, Sandstrom v. Montana (1979), 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39, and In Re Winship (1970), 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L.Ed.2d 368. These cases have no relevance to the misdemeanor defense of illegal parking. In Sandstrom the Supreme Court clearly defined what element was involved in that case.
“The question presented is whether, in a case in which intent is an element of the crime charged, the jury instruction ‘the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts,’ violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirements that the State prove every element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” 99 S.Ct. at 2453.
Those cases refer to the specific intent offenses. Intent is not an element of the offense charged in this case.