Criminal Law keyed to Dripps
Stogner v. California
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
In 1998, a California grand jury indicted Marion Stogner (Defendant) with sex-related child abuse acts committed between 1955 and 1973. At the time the crimes were committed, the statute of limitations was three years. In 1993, however, California enacted a new criminal statute of limitations governing sex-related child abuse crimes. The new law permitted (1) resurrection of otherwise time-barred criminal actions and (2) was enacted after pre-existing limitations periods had expired. Under the new law Defendant could be prosecuted for acts committed decades earlier so long as prosecution begins within a year of a victim’s first complaint to the police. Defendant filed a petition to dismiss the abuse complaint based on the U.S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause in Article I, § 10, cl. 1. The trial court dismissed the indictment but the state’s court of appeal reversed. Defendant then moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his prosecution violates the Ex Post Facto clause and the Due Process clause. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion and the court of appeal affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the claims.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.