STATE V. REYNOLDS 3
Accordingto the issue presented in the case, there was a law that allowedprisoners to make a petition of sentence suspension for a period ofevery two years. This law was applicable on the date of Reynolds’crime. Reynolds filed a petition, but she was not successful.According to the argument presented by Reynolds to the court,suspension of petition could lead to the violation of Article 23 ofthe constitution of New Hampshire (Schmalleger et al, 2010). Thiscould lead to the violation of federal and state constitutionalrestrictions against ex post facto laws. Besides, according toReynolds, the application of the new law towards her petition couldbreach constitution’s part 1, article 23.
TheSupreme Court made a transfer of the petition without ruling sincethe suspension of Reynolds’ petition could violate the federal andstate constitution, which is against ex post facto laws. The courtdeclared that the retrospective application of the fresh law to thepetition of Reynolds could violate part 1, article 23 of theconstitution. Therefore, the court found the argument of Reynoldsappropriate.
Thecontention of the Supreme Court was correct and the pleadings of thedefendant were acceptable because suspending the petition of thedefendant would lead to a violation of Article 23, which is againstthe ex post facto rules (Schmalleger et al, 2010). I agree with thecourt’s decision since the arguments of the state are not validconcerning payroll and continuous punishment. Besides, the SupremeCourt did the right thing by holding the case because ex post factorules must not make the defendant to stay for a longer time withpunishment. Hence, the judgment passed by the court was correct.
Schmalleger,F., Hall, D. E. & Dolatowski, J. J. (2010). Criminallaw today (4th ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Learning.