Can disjunction elimination be used to convict someone of a crime without knowing which crime they committed?
<p>Three different crimes are committed (for simplicity; the same type of crime, just distinct counts) by three different people. Someone is arrested based on evidence that proves they committed one of the crimes, but without being able to prove which one.</p>
<p>Could they be convicted for committing a crime?</p>
<p><strong>Edit:</strong> an alternative that I thought of later: someone is found somewhere where they can legally be, but in a situation where the only way they could have gotten there would involve trespassing through one of several properties owned by different people.</p>
<p>(Tagged as US, but any other jurisdiction would also be of interest.)</p>

<p>Under U.S. law the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed a particular crime beyond a reasonable doubt. So, it is not sufficient to prove that someone committed one of three crimes without proving which one it was.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>an alternative that I thought of later: someone is found somewhere
where they can legally be, but in a situation where the only way they
could have gotten there would involve trespassing through one of
several properties owned by different people.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since the crime of trespassing requires the prosecution merely to show that someone was on the property of another without legal authorization to do so, it might be possible to prove this crime beyond a reasonable doubt without showing precisely which property was crossed, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was a split of authority among U.S. states on this question.</p>

united-states criminal-law evidence theory-of-law