Criminal Appeals And Appellate Procedure
I. Overview of Criminal Appeals and Appellate Procedure
An appeal is a request to a higher court to review and change a lower court's decision.
Appeals usually focus on:
Errors of law (e.g., incorrect interpretation or application of law).
Errors of procedure (e.g., unfair trial process).
Sometimes, errors of fact if clearly established.
The appellate court can:
Affirm the lower court’s decision.
Reverse or modify it.
Order a new trial.
Procedures include notice of appeal, grounds of appeal, written submissions, oral arguments.
II. Landmark Cases on Criminal Appeals and Appellate Procedure
1. R v. Woolmington (1935) AC 462 (UK)
Facts:
Woolmington was convicted of murder; the trial judge shifted the burden of proof onto the defendant.
Judgment:
House of Lords reaffirmed the presumption of innocence.
The prosecution bears the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Established the principle that appellate courts must ensure this burden is respected.
Significance:
Set the foundation for appellate review of trial errors affecting the burden of proof.
Appeals can succeed if the burden was wrongly shifted.
2. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (US)
Facts:
Gideon was denied legal counsel at trial; he appealed on constitutional grounds.
Judgment:
US Supreme Court ruled that the right to counsel is fundamental.
If denied, conviction is subject to reversal on appeal.
Significance:
Emphasized appellate courts’ role in safeguarding constitutional rights.
Appeals can correct violations of fundamental trial rights.
3. R v. Jogee [2016] UKSC 8
Facts:
Jogee was convicted on the basis of joint enterprise without proper consideration of mens rea.
Judgment:
Supreme Court overturned previous standards on joint enterprise.
Clarified mens rea (guilty mind) must be proven for convictions.
Significance:
Showed appellate courts can correct legal misinterpretations.
Reinforced appeals as a tool to update or clarify legal principles.
4. State v. Smith, 1995 (Fictional for illustration)
Facts:
Smith argued his trial was unfair due to improper jury instructions.
Judgment:
Appellate court found error that likely influenced verdict.
Ordered a new trial.
Significance:
Demonstrated appeals correct procedural errors affecting fairness.
Shows appellate courts’ power to remedy trial flaws.
5. R v. C (1997) (UK)
Facts:
Defendant claimed evidence was improperly admitted at trial.
Judgment:
Court of Appeal reviewed admissibility.
Found the evidence improperly admitted and that it prejudiced the case.
Allowed appeal and quashed conviction.
Significance:
Appellate courts review evidentiary rulings.
Incorrect admission of evidence can be ground for successful appeal.
6. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (US)
Facts:
Defendant’s confession was obtained without informing him of his rights.
Judgment:
US Supreme Court ruled that confessions obtained without Miranda warnings are inadmissible.
Appellate courts review such constitutional violations and may reverse convictions.
Significance:
Reinforces appellate courts’ role in protecting against coerced/confession-based convictions.
III. General Principles of Criminal Appeals
Notice of Appeal: Timely filing is crucial.
Grounds of Appeal: Must specify errors in law, fact, or procedure.
Standard of Review:
Questions of law: Reviewed de novo (fresh).
Questions of fact: Deferential unless clearly wrong.
Remedies:
Affirm conviction.
Quash conviction.
Order retrial.
Reduce sentence.
Leave to Appeal: Sometimes required, especially in serious cases.
IV. Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Issue | Outcome | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Woolmington (1935) | UK | Burden of proof | Affirmed presumption of innocence | Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) | US | Right to counsel | Reversed conviction | Right to legal counsel fundamental |
| R v. Jogee (2016) | UK | Joint enterprise and mens rea | Overturned conviction | Clarified mens rea requirement in joint enterprise |
| State v. Smith (1995) | Fictional | Jury instruction error | New trial ordered | Procedural errors affecting fairness warrant retrial |
| R v. C (1997) | UK | Improper admission of evidence | Conviction quashed | Evidentiary rulings subject to appellate review |
| Miranda v. Arizona (1966) | US | Coerced/confession admissibility | Conviction reversed | Protection against self-incrimination |
V. Quick Recap
Appeals correct errors to ensure fair trials and just verdicts.
Appellate courts review law, procedure, and sometimes facts.
Key protections include burden of proof, right to counsel, fair evidence rules, and proper jury directions.
Appellate rulings often clarify or reshape legal standards.
Timely, well-founded appeals are critical for justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments