Question

California enacts a statute that makes cigarette smoking illegal on January 1, 2017. Scott smokes a cigarette on December 31, 2016, and is prosecuted under the statute and convicted. This action by California is:

a) Constitutional under California's police power.
b) Unconstitutional as ex post facto.
c) Unconstitutional as a bill of attainder.
d) None of the above.

Answer 1

Scott's conviction under the statute that made smoking illegal in California beginning January 1, 2017, for an act he committed on December 31, 2016, is unconstitutional as ex post facto, as it punishes actions that were legal at the time they were performed.

Step-by-step explanation:

The action by California to convict Scott for smoking a cigarette on December 31, 2016, under a statute that only made smoking illegal on January 1, 2017, is unconstitutional as ex post facto. An ex post facto law is one that criminalizes an action retroactively, thereby punishing individuals for actions that were legal at the time they were committed. Scott's actions should not be subject to the statute because his actions took place before the law came into effect.

States, including California, are bound by the Constitution to refrain from passing ex post facto laws or laws that retrospectively change the legal consequences or status of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. Therefore, based on the prohibition against ex post facto laws, Scott's conviction would be unconstitutional.