California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Donorovich-Odonnell v. Harris, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 579, 241 Cal.App.4th 1118 (Cal. App. 2015):
10 We disagree with plaintiffs' assertion the rule of lenity should apply. That rule generally requires that ambiguity in a criminal statute should be resolved in favor of lenity, giving the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt on questions of interpretation. But ... that rule applies only if two reasonable interpretations of the statute stand in relative equipoise. [Citation.] [Citations.] [Citations.]' [Citation.] The rule of lenity does not apply every time there are two or more reasonable interpretations of a penal statute. [Citation.] Rather, the rule applies only if the court can do no more than guess what the legislative body intended; there must be an egregiousambiguity and uncertainty to justify invoking the rule. [Citation.]' (People v. Nuckles (2013) 56 Cal.4th 601, 611, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 374, 298 P.3d 867.) Such is not the case here.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.