Talk:Hybrid offence

Total mess

Is this article about a single offence defined in law which is explicitly either a felony or a misdemeanor (or a summary offense???) at the election of the prosecutor (or judge??)? Or is this article about defined felonies (or misdemeanors???) that have lesser included offenses that are misdemeanors (or summary offenses???) and have a procedure for the reduction of the former to the latter in the discretion of a prosecutor (or judge??). I am guessing that a "triable-either-way offence" is in the first category--a single offense that can explicitly be prosecuted at as lower grade offense with lesser punishment and lesser procedures. Whether the equivalent exists in any of the United States I can only guess. On the other hand, the article seems to be trying to describe, in the US context, the common procedure of reducing a felony to a lesser included offense. This felony reduction involves two separate crimes defined in law where the felony consists of the non-felony's elements plus additional elements. The prosecutor (with or without the court's involvement) changes the offense charged from one charge (a felony like grand theft) to a non-felony (petit theft, maybe attempted grand theft). In such case, two different crimes were charged, fort one, then another. In some jurisdictions this process may involve a reduction to a non-felony that is not even a truly lesser included offense, but merely a related offense of lesser category. I am supposing that a felony reduction, as it exists in many US states, is simply a form of recharging, the discretionary substitution of one charged offence for a different offense that will take its place as the offense the defendant is accused of. [See, e.g. New York State Criminal Procedure Law §180.50.] Thus, in the felony reduction context described, what offence is a hybrid/dual/Crown option/dual procedure offence? I would say that the original felony charge is none of these things, but simply a felony charge. It may be dropped in favor of a different offence of lesser grade, but that is merely the application of a procedure for substituting a new charge, not electing to prosecute the same charged offense with non-felony procedure and reduced punishments. The "triable-either-way offence" procedure does not exist in many states where one offense is a felony and another a misdemeanor and neither is "triable either way" as such.

To confuse the matter more, the current article states " In the United States, an alternative misdemeanor/felony offense (colloquially known as a wobbler) lists both county jail (misdemeanor sentence) and state prison (felony sentence) as possible punishment." This is seriously problematic. It is a problem inasmuch as it talks about the punishments as being "misdemeanor" or "felony" by venue. In many states a person convicted of single felony offence can get "state prison" or "county jail" in the sentencing court's discretion. However a felony is defined (in most of the USA, but note PA's system, etc) by its maximum authorized sentence (in excess of one year incarceration), not the sentence actually imposed. If you are convicted of a felony and get a fine for a sentence, it is still a felony. Is this a "wobbler"? This is not a "triable-either-way offence." Is it a hybrid offence? No. A dual offence? No. Crown option offence? No. Dual procedure offence? I dunno.

And, last but not least, there is the issue of an offense in an American state that is defined as a single offense in law with a maximum term of incarceration that is more than six months, but less than a year. In some jurisdictions a prosecutor may elect to pursue the charge without a jury, usually in a kind of lower court like a "district court," instead of with a jury in a higher court (often a "circuit court"). This decision automatically lessens the maximum punishment a defendant faces since the federal constitution prohibits jail of over six months if no jury trial if offered (the state statute may explicitly provide for such a reduced punishment). In such a case, the defendant is prosecuted for the same exact misdemeanor offense, but with a reduced penalty in terms of maximum incarceration. (Virginia's system is something like this, if I understand correctly. In VA a defendant may "appeal" to circuit court and have a trial de novo with a jury and full punishment potential.) I believe this is a true form of or close relative of the "triable-either-way offence" even though the offence is a misdemeanor either way. This is because the prosecutor elects a 'lesser' procedure, as it were, and the punishment is thereby reduced for the same exact charged offense.

Anyway, the article is bleeding mess and needs to be split (Hybrid offence vs felony reduction) or renamed. In either case it needs to be re-written by someone with a clue.

Preceding unsigned comment added by69.205.128.71 (talk)

Reply to 69.205.128.71: This article relates to a way of classifying offences according to mode of trial. I am not aware that "felony reduction" has anything to do with this, not that I know anything about US law. The article should probably not be renamed because this term is used in England and Wales (or at least it was before the Criminal Law Act 1977 replaced it with "either-way offence"), but it may be that it should be split. James500 (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@James500 Please note that my complaints are focused on the claims about the law in the USA, with which I have some familiarity. "Classifying offences according to mode of trial" [well stated] is not at all common in the US--though I'm sure it exists somewhere. I feel that this is basically a decent article on a mainly UK-ish topic that has been infested with confusing crap purporting to characterize the very complicated situation in the USA. A split or a purge is necessary, I would say.

Contradicts itself

The introduction says that the prosecution chooses which way to proceed, while the body says that the defendant chooses. --Delirium 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Two different issues - the prosecutor decides which offense to charge, the defendant has a say in which court hears the case (but no say in what offense is charged). bd2412 T 01:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that makes sense... is there a way of saying that in the article more clearly? As a nonspecialist I conflated the two issues when reading, which I think might not be that uncommon (but I could be wrong). --Delirium 02:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

At the moment, this article bears the "Criminal law in English law" template but purports, in the head para, to cover several jurisdictions. "Hybrid offence" is not an English legal term at all, and I doubt if "wobbler" is a term of art in any of the jurisdictions mentioned. The details given are for England and Wales only and are unreferenced.

I propose moving this article to Offence triable either way, limiting it to English law for the time being, and leaving "Hybrid offence" as a "Redirect with possibilities".Cutler 09:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Examples

As a lay reader, I could really do with some examples.

201.230.43.234 (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Trade Marks Act 1994, Section 92 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.233 (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

disorganized article

Is California a province of Canada? Or is Californian law derived from Canadian law, in turn based on a broader American legal tradition that owes its roots to the Scots- who got their ideas from the English? Article needs to better justify its organization, explain the development of the category over time, or plain rewritten/organized.75.173.4.121 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hybrid offence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020211759/http://www.criminal-lawyer.on.ca/classification.html to http://www.criminal-lawyer.on.ca/classification.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418130713/http://www.attorneylombardo.com/felonies_misdemeanors/san_diego_arrested to http://www.attorneylombardo.com/felonies_misdemeanors/san_diego_arrested

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hybrid offence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100628225209/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=484-502.9 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=484-502.9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)