Fair warning in criminal law
Mark Christopher Crew v. Vang
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Mark Christopher Crew asked whether a court deciding if a later reading of a criminal law was foreseeable may ignore the state supreme court’s first authoritative reading just because it came after his conduct, even if it interpreted the law as it stood then.
- Who it affects
- Crew did not get a Supreme Court ruling on whether the later reading was foreseeable when he acted.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court refused to hear his case (denied review) and did not decide that question.
The dispute asks how to judge whether a criminal law’s later interpretation could have been anticipated when the conduct occurred.
Question presented
In determining under Bouie if a later judicial construction was foreseeable at the time of the defendant’s conduct, whether a court may disregard the state supreme court’s first authoritative interpretation of the statute solely because it was issued after the conduct occurred, even though the court was construing the statute as it existed when the conduct occurred?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.