Originally Posted by
dougmc
I don't know the legal term for it, but I believe there's a general legal principal or something along those lines that says that criminal laws must (should?) be interpreted in the way most beneficial to those accused under them.
The general principle is that penal statutes must be narrowly construed in favor of an accused.
Yarborough v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 215, 218, 441 S.E.2d 342, 344 (1994) ("When a statute is penal in nature, it 'must be strictly construed against the Commonwealth and in favor of an accused'").
“Penal statutes must be ‘strictly construed against the State’ and ... ‘cannot be extended by implication or construction, or be made to embrace cases which are not within their letter and spirit.’” Commonwealth, Dep’t of Motor Vehicles v. Athey, 261 Va. 385, 388, 542 S.E.2d 764, 766 (2001) (quoting Berry v. City of Chesapeake, 209 Va. 525, 526, 165 S.E.2d 291, 292 (1969)). However, although we construe statutes strictly in criminal cases, we will not apply “an unreasonably restrictive interpretation of the statute” that would subvert the legislative intent expressed therein. Ansell v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 759, 761, 250 S.E.2d 760, 761 (1979).
Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 312, 315, 549 S.E.2d 641, 643 (2001), aff’d, 263 Va. 573, 562 S.E.2d 139 (2002).
Originally Posted by
contango
It's a shame the legislators couldn't produce a law that wasn't subject to being picked apart like this. The defence is only doing their job, and the legislators have apparently failed to do theirs.
Indeed.