Criminal Law
Howell
Fall 2012
Basic Principles of Criminal Law
1. Sources of Criminal Law
a. 50 state criminal codes/penal codes
b. U.S. Military code
c. Common Law
d. Federal criminal code
e. D.C. criminal code
f. Model Penal Code (34 state codes based on)
i. drafted by American Law Institute in 1962
2. Presumption of Innocence, Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
a. Gov’t must prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt
i. Yes: Firmly convinced
ii. Doubts that are fanciful, whimsical, conjectural are not reasonable
b. High burden b/c of the gravity of consequences (potential loss of liberty, stigma of criminal record)
3. Justifications for Punishment
a. Utilitarian v. Retributivist Purposes (e.g. punishment serves society vs. punishment fits crime)
i. General deterrence (U)
ii. Specific deterrence (U)
iii. Rehabilitation (U)
iv. Incapacitation (U)
v. Retribution (R)
b. Dudley & Stevens: 4 guys stranded in a lifeboat with only 1 turnip & 1 turtle. After 20 days, 3 of them kill the 4th guy and eat him.
i. Necessity is not an exception to murder (unless it’s self-defense and the person you’re killing is an aggressor)
ii. One cannot take an innocent life to save others, even if it is necessary and there are no alternatives, because we cannot compare the relative value of human lives
iii. What is the purpose of punishing Dudley & Stevens w/in above framework? Retribution alone?
c. MPC 1.02: generally, use science to control crimes
i. Prevent harm
ii. Give fair warning
iii. Differentiate between serious & minor offenses
iv. Safeguard innocent conduct
v. Control those disposed to commit crimes
d. NYPL 1.05: generally, public safety, community, victim impact
i. Prevent harm
ii. Give fair warning
iii. Differentiate between serious & minor offenses
iv. Define acts, omissions, mental states
v. Provide public response
vi. Ensure public safety
e. Incarceration rates: the U.S. locks a lot of people up. Like, a FUCKTON of people. Mostly black people. And poor people.
Constitutional Constraints
1. Constitutional Limitations on the Power to Punish
a. Papachristou: “rogues and vagabonds” FL vagrancy ordinance used to arrest mixed-race couples driving around together
i. Void for Vagueness Doctrine: statutes are V for V if they (1) fail to provide fair notice to persons of ordinary intelligence, and (2) to discourage arbitrary arrests/convictions & limit police discretion to imprison people they don’t like ← second element most important
ii. This ordinance made it (1) very hard for normal people to know how to conform to the statute, and (2) was ripe for arbitrary enforcement
b. Kolender v. Lawson: the Black guy who likes to walk everywhere
i. Ct emphasizes that the arbitrary discretion element is more important part of the doctrine
ii. Statute was not definite/clear enough & allowed too much police discretion
c. Can A Person Be Free to Wander/ Walking While Black: role of race & racism in “arbitrary” police enforcement and conduct
d. Morales: Chicago Gang Congregation Ordinance
i. Ordinance was V for V because there were no minimal guidelines to limit law enforcement activity; criminal laws must not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement
e. NYPL 5.00: “…The provisions herein must be construed according to the fair import of their terms to promote justice and effect the objects of the law.”
f. Statutory Interpretation:
i. Rule of Lenity = resolve doubts in def.s favor (strict construction)
ii. MPC 1.02(3) = where unclear, construe statutes to further purposes of the law
iii. NYPL 5.00 = strict construction not the rule, construe to promote justice & objects of the law
4 Basic Elements of most U.S. crimes:
1. actus reus, 2. mens rea, 3, causation, 4. concurrence
Actus Reus
1. 5 limitations on actus reus
a. 1. No thought crimes
b. 2. Not compelled by gov’t
c. 3. Must be a voluntary act
d. 4. No liability for omissions unless legal duty to act
e. 5. Cannot be punished for status alone
2. Acting vs. Thinking
a. Dalton: charged w/ possession of child porn for writing a fictional diary
i. Generally, thoughts are not sufficient to satisfy an actus reus.
3. Acting on One’s Own & Acting Voluntarily
a. General rule: A voluntary act is required for conduct to be criminal.
b. Martin: Cops pull drunk guy out of his house & arrest for being drunk in public
i. Rule: Actus reus is not satisfied where the act is the result of gov’t compulsion
c. Decina: Epileptic who had seizure while driving and killed 4 kids
i. AR of criminally negligent driving is established when def. knows he is subject to unconsciousness or other incapacitation and drives anyway in disregard of the consequences.
d. Epileptic Convicted: ruling counter to Decina
e. MPC 2.01(1)-(2)
i. AR requires volitional act
ii. NON-volitional acts include reflex, unconsciousness, hypnosis, movement not the product of effort
f. NYPL 15.00(1)-(2)
i. Volitional act = body movement performed consciously, including possession for period of time sufficient to terminate possession
ii. NON-volitional acts include body movement performed unconsciously, brief possession for short time that one could not terminate
4. Acting vs. Failing to Act
a. General rule: AR is not satisfied by an omiss
uld be aware of a substantial & unjustifiable risk; a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe
Negligently: fails to perceive a substantial … (same as MPC)
b. Cunningham: Def. stole gas meter w/o turning off gas. Was it malicious?
i. Malice = actual intent to do a particular harm OR recklessness as to whether such harm should occur
ii. Recklessness = def. has foreseen the harm and went ahead and risked it anyway
c. Yermian: guy made false statements to federal agency on employment form
i. Case centers around issue of knowingly
ii. Rule of lenity (statutory interpretation): If statute is ambiguous, the Court shall interpret it towards the defendants favor (all defendants) → i.e. construe it narrowly to cover less conduct.
1. This operates in federal jurisdictions but NOT in MPC or NYPL
iii. Ct actually d/n apply rule of lenity and says the federal agency thing is merely a jurisdictional requirement
d. Fugate: robber shot & killed victim; how to prove intent
i. Intent @ CL = conscious objective OR knowledge to a virtual certainty (under MPC, that would be purpose & knowledge)
ii. Doctrine of natural & probable consequences: Mens rea of “intentionally/purposely” can be inferred from the natural & probable consequences of the act (because court can’t read minds) → if evidence and inferences reasonably deducible support it
1. Intent to kill may be presumed where the natural and probable consequence of a wrongful act is to produce death
e. MPC 1.02(3), 2.02
i. No rule of lenity: construe statutes to further stated purposes
ii. Definition of mens rea kinds (see above chart)
iii. If not specified, mens rea is established if conduct is purposeful, knowing or reckless (i.e. reckless or above)
iv. Mens rea applies to all material elements
v. knowledge established by knowledge of high probability, unless def. actually believes it does not exist (wilful blindness rule)
f. NYPL 5.00, 15.05, 15.15(1)
i. No rule of lenity: promote justice & stated objectives
ii. Definition of mens rea states (see chart above)
iii. MR applies to every element of statute (not just material)
