Crim Law Spring 2009 Outline

I.  Method of Crim Intent Law

  1. How crim law is validated through process
  2. Characteristics
  3. Series of command, both positive and negative
  4. You must do this; prohibited from doing this ex. You must file tax returns; You must not murder.
  5. Understood as valid expressions of community’s expectations-punishes disobedience
  6. People must know what it is they are violating
  7. Violators of crim law exposed to society’s beliefs (shows societal norms)
  8. Punishment and enforcement
  9. Sources of Crim Law
  10. Public Law
  11. Limited by Const
  12. 8th amend: Cruel and Unusual Punishment
  13. Statutes
  14. Legislators play imp role in determining what laws are/what actions are prohibited
  15. Statutes are the primary source of crim law
  16. MPC
  17. Each state has own penal code, but 34 have adopted MPC in parts
  18. Written in 1952, completed in 1062
  19. A substantive restatement of crim law
  20. Common Law
  21. Old codes drawn from English common law 1600s
  22. Judges play more imp role in interpreting statutory language
  23. Fed gov’t has crim code Title 18: Congress can only write crim laws based on interstate commerce

v. US Constitution

1.  Most important source of federal law for both CL and MPC jurisdictions

II.  Theories of Punishment

a.  Principle

i.  Gov’t needs good reason to take someone out of society

ii. It is unacceptable to use force against another human being w/o a good legal reason

iii.  Sate should not invade indv freedoms w/o a good legal reason

b.  Moral Reasoning

i.  Consequentialism

1.  Actions are morally right if they result in desirable consequences

2.  Utilitarianism: primary theory of punishment

a.  Look forward at predictable effects of punishment on offender or society

ii. Non-consequentialism

1.  Actions are morally right or wrong in themselves regardless of the consequences

2.  Retributivism: primary form of punishment

a.  Look backwards at the harm caused by crime and attempt to calibrate the punishment to crime

c.  Types of Punishment

  1. General Deterrence
  2. Punishment to deter others from committing the same or similar offenses
  3. Ex. Suite: Gun laws – focuses on deterrent
  4. Ex. Lorton Central Prison – incarceration is not the best way b/c prisoners depend on the security of the jail

4.  Case study disputes each traditional punishment way

  1. Specific Deterrence
  2. Punishment to deter the individual Δ from committing the same crime in the future
  3. Rehabilitation
  4. Reforming the Δ through vocation training, counseling, drug rehab, etc
  5. Incapacitation
  6. Incarceration to keep the Δ away from other members of society
  7. Retribution
  8. Giving the Δ what he deserves

III.  Standard of Proof

  1. Π bears the burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. It would cause a reasonable person to bend or pause
  3. Δ presumed innocent
  4. Not mere possible doubt

b.  Defenses

i.  Case in chief/prima facie case: create a reasonable doubt, poke holes in the Πs case

ii. Admitting basic crime, but arguing for acquittal based on extenuating circumstances (Justification)

iii.  Affirmative defense: admit guilt but claims that should be acquitted or excused

IV.  Criminal Process

  1. Judges charges jury, Δ presumed innocent, Π must prove case beyond reasonable doubt
  2. Π gives opening statement, followed by Δ
  3. Π gives case-in-cheek – witnesses and any evidence to prove elements of prima facie crime
  4. After prosecution rests, Δ has right to move for directed verdict (not always granted)
  5. If not granted, Δ gives their case (not required)
  6. If Δ does put on case, Π can rebuttal
  7. Closing arguments by both parties
  8. Jury Verdict
  9. Standard of Review

1.  Δ may move for a directed verdict of acquittal, in which the judge directs the jury to acquit for lack of evidence

a.  If Δ is convicted, may appeal the conviction to higher ct for review of sufficiency of evidence

b.  Trial/appellate judge do not apply reasonable doubt, instead use the Standard of Review

c.  On motion for directed verdict, trial judge asks whether the prosecution has introduced sufficient evidence such that a rational jury COULD decide that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt

d.  When evidence is ambiguous, appellate ct reviewing a conviction will give the prosecution, not the Δ, the benefit of the doubt

  1. If prosecution hasn’t met burden, judge can give granted verdict though eyes of what the jury would have found
  2. Appellate court standard of review: if rational jury can prove that Π has proved it beyond a reasonable doubt
  3. If judge can’t say that prosecution has met the burden: becomes a question for the jury
  4. Role of the Jury
  5. People v. Williams: rape case where judge excused a jury member because he wanted to exercise his right to nullify the verdict
  6. Slippery slope argument.
  7. Jury has right to determine the law and the facts in all crim cases

4.  6th Amendment guarantees that in all crim prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury

5.  Judge gives jury instructions, but jury is not obligated to follow the law

a.  Judge cannot punish or overturn jury’s not guilty verdict

6.  Jury Nullification in History

a.  Definition

i.  Act of returning a verdict contrary to law

  1. Trial of Edward Bushnell – Eng.1670
  2. Power to decide both facts and law
  3. Common law case of nullification
  4. Judge directed jury to find him guilty, jurors refused and found him not guilty. Judge was going to fine jury to punish them
  5. Bushnell refused to pay the fine
  6. Ct of common pleas: jury cannot be punished for any of its verdicts
  7. Zenger’s publication (American)
  8. Zenger published a weekly newspaper
  9. Prosecuted for libel – argued defense of facts
  10. Truth not a defense for libel, no freedom of press
  11. Judge told jury they must find him guilty, 10 min of deliberation, jury finds him not guilty

d.  Race Based Nullification (Butler)

  1. Solutions
  2. Liberal Critique
  3. Crim justice system is racist
  4. Community organizing initiatives are imp
  5. Radical
  6. Have black jurors nullify non-violent criminals (like drug possession crimes) to offset the trend
  7. Black jurors presume in non violent cases that verdict should be nullified regardless of the evidence to get rid of social injustices
  8. Voting power doesn’t work

ii. Rebuttal (Leipold)

  1. Realizes there is a problem, but telling AfAm to ignore the law would be an injustice
  2. Why it won’t work
  3. Most potential AFAm juries will be rejected for jurors, prosecutions would take them out
  4. It is unlawful for counsel to use race to disqualify jury – have to find a race neutral argument
  5. In order to make an informed and correct decision, jurors need more info but usually don’t get that during trial
  6. Δs contribution, previous record, potential sentences
  7. Δ doesn’t have to testify, so to nullify the jury,
  8. Slippery slope argument: if juries start learning of power to nullify, what if (ex) jurors start considering rape victims: woman was asking for it by wearing a short skirt and acquits the Δ. There are unintended consequences for nullification

V.  Limits on power to punish

  1. Constitutional restraints
  2. Amend 8. Cruel and Unusual punishment
  3. Equal Protection clause
  4. Federalism and the Supremacy Clause
  5. States have power to regulate own people, but b/c of supremacy clause, federal system limits state powers
  6. Commerce Clause
  7. The Void-for-vagueness doctrine
  8. What is it?
  9. Legal fiction when applied to individual or accused
  10. It is a const check on actors in crim justice system
  11. Fetters discretion on law enforcement officials
  12. Due Process clause
  13. What kind of conduct in crim statute is prohibited
  14. Limits unfettered police discretion; jury’s discretion to convict indv that jury may not like
  15. Vague statutes are said to deny DP, so unconst
  16. Papchristous v. City of Jacksonville
  17. Courts concerned with the unfettered discretion of police officers against poor and minorities
  18. Police can stop anyone on mere suspicion that mischief is afoot
  19. Probable cause: police need probable cause to arrest or search and seize
  20. Terry standard: reasonable suspicion falls below prob cause; in order for police to stop and question someone, police officers need some reasonable suspicion, articulated suspicion NOT just a hunch.
  21. Kolender v. Laweson
  22. Challenge to penal statute that says need credible and reliable ID-vague
  23. Police need to have reasonable suspicion under Terry to stop someone
  24. Must have notice of statute/penal code to know what would constitute actions that violate the statute
  25. City of Chicago v. Morales
  26. Overbroad statute: officers have right to remove anyone, if they disobey, get fined and have jail time
  27. People need to give up liberty for the safety of others
  28. Distinguished from Papchristous: reason for statute is directed at gangs and resulted from a different democratic process – communities were affected
  29. The Act Requirement
  30. Result from 5 doctrines
  31. Thought crimes
  32. Notion that person should not be convicted solely b/c of their thoughts but rather done something that created harm
  33. Situational offenses
  34. Cannot have been compelled by the gov’t
  35. Voluntary vs. Involuntary acts
  36. Act must have been voluntary – involves some type of choice
  37. Omission
  38. No criminal liability for failure to act, unless person who failed to act had a legal duty to do so
  39. Status crimes are unconstitutional
  40. Being who you are vs. doing something cannot be punished
  41. Only doctrine in the Const
  42. Basic element to any crime (serve as expression for what society thinks is just)
  43. Actus reus
  44. Prohibited act that results in some kind of social harm
  45. Principle that crim law only reaches voluntary acts, or omissions to act when there is a legal duty to do so
  46. Society needs someone to be culpable for their acts
  47. People should be punished for bad choices, not simply from acts that cause harm –
  48. MPC §2.01- actus reus requirement
  49. Set s out list of involuntary acts
  50. Possession is an act
  51. Liability for commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unless…
  52. Omission is expressly sufficient by law defining offense
  53. A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
  54. General rule; indv have no duty to act. Crim liability can’t be based on omissions – must be based on social harm
  55. Contractual duties, statutory duties
  56. Thought-Act Continuum
  57. Guilty state of mind is required – can’t be just mere fantasy
  58. Cant punish thought crimes
  59. 1st amend: freedom of speech, can’t be touched for thoughts or beliefs you have – no proof of thoughts
  60. Dalton: wrote pedophiliac journals; must have actus reus to complete social crime and be punished for it
  61. Wisconsin v. Mitchell: ct applies sentencing enhancement to people who intentionally select victim b/c of race, religion, etc. – incited others to complete social harm of his thoughts
  62. Martin v. state : Martin drunk at home police force him into public to arrest him for drunkenson – If a 3rd party forces/threats of force to make Δ do some prohibited action, Cts won’t punish them
  63. State v Decina: at must be voluntary – volitional: movement of body b/c of thought – actor could have chosen NOT to do the act (driving with seizure)
  64. Causation
  65. Chain that links Δs acts with the social harm
  66. Concurrence b/w the prohibited act and the prohibited mental state

1.  Requires that actus reus and mens rea be concurrent

  1. Acts and omissions/Legal Duty to Act
  2. Establishing Duty to Act
  3. Beardsley: legal duty to act (only if there is a special relationship) – generally no duty to act
  4. Howard: Involuntary manslaughter when a direct result doing of an unlawful act is reckless or grossly negligent manner, or doing of lawful act in reckless of grossly neg manner causes the death of another person; even though law requires an act, an omission can satisfy that act requirement
  5. Culpability of continuing failure to act
  6. Parent-Child relationship
  7. Must be reckless or grossly neg- society would impose this on a reasonable mother (ex) – mother may not have to risk own life for a child
  8. Pestinikas
  9. Liability to Act/omission
  10. Where express language of law defining offense provides for crim liability for omissions
  11. Where law otherwise imposes duty to act
  12. Contractual obligation
  13. Failure to act according to K can be criminal if other factors satisfied
  14. Good Samaritan Laws : aid for civil liability
  15. Status Crimes
  16. 8th and 14th Amendment
  17. People only punished for conduct not what kind of person they are

v. Mens rea

1.  Definition

  1. A guilty mind
  2. A prohibited mental state
  3. Mental state on its own cannot be punished- must have action
  4. Broad – morally culpable state of mind; Δ guilty if he has a bad state of mind; state of mind not tied to intent; no distinction b/c intentional and negligent acts
  5. Narrower- Δ won’t be guilty of an offense w/ prosecutor if not able to prove mens rea stated in definition of defense
  6. Regina v. Cunningham
  7. Unlawfully and maliciously administer – taking of gas meter
  8. Malicious is NOT wicked morally; legally it means that it is either the actual intention to do the harm, or recklessness as to whether or not harm caused by act would occur
  9. Common law approach
  10. Elements
  11. Felonious intent
  12. Crim intent
  13. Malice aforethought
  14. Guilty knowledge
  15. Fraudulent intent
  16. Willfulness
  17. Recklessness
  18. Scienter
  19. Traditional common law
  20. Mens rea definitions were really imprecise – as we move further down the line and progress in history, goal was to provide precise definitions of the different mens rea terms. Appellate ct in Cunningham takes middle of the road approach and reflects temporary common law approach
  21. Must have actual intent to cause the harm and recklessness (2 types of intent)
  22. Whoever shall purposely, knowing, or recklessly administer X act

4.  MPC approach

a.  Purpose

  1. Conscious object to engage in conduct
  2. Element involves nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result
  3. Δ is aware of existence of such circumstances
  4. How to establish?
  5. If Δ confesses – conscious object to do the crime (kill someone) Person wants to kill someone on the bus. Cannot be purposely responsible for other passengers that die. Did not consciously desire that other bus passengers should be injured.
  6. Proving Intent
  7. MPC definitions
  8. Conscious object that Δ consciously desires to achieve a result
  9. Purposely and knowingly
  10. Common law
  11. Knowledge to a virtual certainty
  12. State v. Fugate: intent of accused person dwells in his mind; Can’t be proved by direct testimony of 3rd person; may be inferred through natural and probable consequences through Δs acts
  13. Virginia v. Black: KKK rally – falls outside prescription outlined in RAB
  14. Ex. Yermian
  15. Material element of an offense: element that does not relate exclusively to the statute of limitation, juris, venue, or to any other matter similarly unconnected w/ the harm or evil, incident to conduct, sought to be prevented by law defining the defense
  16. Ex. Holloway v. US
  17. Carjacking w/ intent to cause death or bodily harm is a crime
  18. Conditional intent is part of intent; unless condition negatives the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense
  19. Transferred Intent Doctrine
  20. Concept: intent to do one things can’t be substituted for intent to do another
  21. Can be held liable for intentionally doing another crime even if that person was in fact not an intended victim
  22. People v. Scott
  23. “bad aim” scenario – in park
  24. General v. Specific Intent
  25. People v. Atkins: burning canyons: specific: what the actor was actually thinking or planning at the time of event; general: vaguer, burden of proof on prosecution lower, prove that Δ wanted to do the act
  26. MPC doesn’t recognize different
  27. Gen: prosecutor has to prove that Δ did the underlying act – when crime required mens rea only as an intent to do the act that causes harm
  28. Δ wanted to do the crime but didn’t have intent to do further act or consequence
  29. Spec: Δ had specific intent to achieve the result- crime when required mens rea entails an intent to cause the resulting harm
  30. Δ had intent to do some further act or consequence
  31. MPC 2.03

b.  Knowledge