Supreme Court· 6/6/1977

Splawn v. California

Citations

431 U.S. 595
97 S. Ct. 1987
52 L. Ed. 2d 606
1977 U.S. LEXIS 100
2 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1881

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

challenge to instruction to jury permitting jury to consider motives of commercial exploitation in reaching its verdict rejected.
\the elements of a statutory offense may not be so changed by judicial interpretation as to deny to accused defendants fair warning of the crime prohibited\
“the elements of a statutory offense may not be so changed by judicial interpretation as to deny to accused defendants fair warning of the crime prohibited”
rules relating to admissibility of evidence are procedural in nature and do not violate ex post facto clause
rules relating to admissibility of evidence are procedural in nature and do not violate ex post facto clause

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brennan, Marshall, Rehnquist, Stevens, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Splawn v. California

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.