In In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970) the Court held "the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." 397 U.S. at 364. This holding was extended in Mullaney v. Wilbur to encompass determinations of sentencing as well as determinations of guilt. 421 U.S. 684, 698, 95 S. Ct. 1881, 44 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1975). Mullaney explains Winship is concerned as much "with the degree of criminal culpability" as with the finding of guilt. Id. at 697-98. The Court therefore expressed concern with allowing states limitless ability to define the elements of a crime. If a State is free to define the elements of a crime without due process constraints, it could avoid those very constraints simply by defining facts to be mere factors that "bear solely on the extent of punishment." Id. at 698.