Question

Three years ago, a registered representative, Tom, was convicted of vandalizing a public monument—a misdemeanor. This past year, the law was modified and vandalizing a public monument is now a felony. Which of the following is true?

A) Tom would not have to list the conviction.
B) Tom must indicate that he has been convicted of a felony.
C) Tom would be subject to statutory disqualification.
D) Tom would return to court to defend himself against the upgraded charge.

Answer 1

Tom would not be retroactively charged with a felony for his past misdemeanor conviction, due to the constitutional protection against ex post facto laws. He is not subject to statutory disqualification nor does he need to list the conviction as a felony.

Step-by-step explanation:

The student's question pertains to the legal concept of ex post facto laws, which are laws that retrospectively change the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the enactment of the law. In this scenario, Tom, a registered representative, was convicted of a misdemeanor for vandalizing a public monument three years ago. Since then, the law was changed, and such vandalism is now considered a felony.

According to U.S. legal principles and the Constitution, Tom would not be retroactively charged with a felony because the crime was committed when the act was classified as a misdemeanor. Therefore, Tom would not have to list the conviction as a felony, and he would not be subject to statutory disqualification or required to defend himself against the upgraded charge in court.