stating that the rule of lenity “applies to the interpretation of criminal statutes when ‘a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute’ remains after we have considered other canons of statutory construction” (quoting Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 577, 129 S.Ct. 1849, 1856, 173 L.Ed.2d 785 (2009))
How later courts described this case
- stating that the rule of lenity “applies to the interpretation of criminal statutes when ‘a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute’ remains after we have considered other canons of statutory construction” (quoting Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 577, 129 S.Ct. 1849, 1856, 173 L.Ed.2d 785 (2009))
- stating that the rule of lenity applies “when ‘a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute’ remains after we have considered other canons of statutory construction” (quoting Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 577, 129 S.Ct. 1849, 173 L.Ed.2d 785 (2009))
- concluding that when a criminal statute was ambiguous and none of the alternative reasonable interpretations was most persuasive, under the rule of lenity, the statute would be construed in favor of the defendant
- stating “the basic principle that the relevant definition of a term depends on the context in which the term is used”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GILDEA, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I join the dissent of Justice Lillehaug.