7

Three different crimes are committed (for simplicity; the same type of crime, just distinct counts) by three different people. Someone is arrested based on evidence that proves they committed one of the crimes, but without being able to prove which one.

Could they be convicted for committing a crime?

Edit: an alternative that I thought of later: someone is found somewhere where they can legally be, but in a situation where the only way they could have gotten there would involve trespassing through one of several properties owned by different people.

(Tagged as US, but any other jurisdiction would also be of interest.)

Improve this question
8
  • 1
    You can prove A, B and C punched X in rapid succession but you do not know which order they did it in? Or which day?
    – George White
    Nov 10, 2021 at 23:11
  • 3
    @GeorgeWhite Maybe 3 masked suspects of similar height, build, and dress are filmed committing 3 acts of vandalism, one each, then walk off-screen. They walk into view of another nearby camera, where they take their masks off. It would be clear these three are the same individuals, but unclear who committed which acts of vandalism.
    – Ryan_L
    Nov 10, 2021 at 23:32
  • 1
    @Ryan_L what you described is the kind of thing I was thinking of but maybe even more distinct; say adding at different places and they don't even know each other so there is no question of putting them on trial together. (Would only one of them being arrested make any difference?)
    – BCS
    Nov 11, 2021 at 2:47
  • 2
    Another case might be: two identical twins are simultaneously caught on film robbing different stores. Prosecutors are unable to obtain any evidence of which twin robbed which store.
    – Ryan M
    Nov 11, 2021 at 3:23
  • 2
    I want to say that it matters if they're the same crime. If it is, the prosecutor could prove all the elements of the crime without actually knowing where, exactly, they did it. Otherwise, they can't. However, I don't have any specific citation that I can point to for this.
    – Ryan M
    Nov 11, 2021 at 3:24

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

Under U.S. law the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed a particular crime beyond a reasonable doubt. So, it is not sufficient to prove that someone committed one of three crimes without proving which one it was.

an alternative that I thought of later: someone is found somewhere where they can legally be, but in a situation where the only way they could have gotten there would involve trespassing through one of several properties owned by different people.

Since the crime of trespassing requires the prosecution merely to show that someone was on the property of another without legal authorization to do so, it might be possible to prove this crime beyond a reasonable doubt without showing precisely which property was crossed, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was a split of authority among U.S. states on this question.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .