Kirchmeier – Criminal Law – CUNY Law – Fall 2014
Overview
Constitution and Criminal Law
The Fifth Amendment states “no person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy” that bars the Government from re-prosecuting a defendant after a jury acquittal
The Sixth Amendment guarantees trial by jury for serious crimes. “The accused shall enjoy the right to speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment (applies to inherently cruel punishments such as torture and execution by painful and lingering methods / also prohibits punishments that are cruel and unusual in a given case b/c the punishment is so disproportionate to the crime)
Principles that LIMIT the distribution of punishment
Legality ensures that people have fair warning of proscribed conduct (previously defined conduct only)
Void for vagueness forbids legislative lawmaking to courts that statute must not be overbreadth. Vague statutes are unacceptable b/c they deny a law-abiding person fair notice, and they provide police and prosecutors the opportunity to act in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.
Lenity requires strict construction of statutes (construe statutes strictly) – read the statute in favor of ê — NOT applied under MPC, NYPL
NOTE: Professor Kirchmeier was absent for several classes toward the end of the Fall 2014 semester due to a death in the family. The exam roadmap is therefore missing a small number of topics he normally covers (kidnapping, rape, etc.). Several of those topics are included in the MPC/NYPC/Common Law chart (second half of document) as they were covered in 2013, but they were NOT updated in Fall 2014 – always update and//or rewrite your downloaded outlines before you study from them!
EXAM ROADMAP
Main Analysis, Conduct/Result Crimes:
INTRODUCTION
The question is whether ê can be convicted of CRIME. In order to convict ê, the prosecution must prove every element of the crime (actus reus, mens rea, and causation for result crimes) BRD. “BRD” traditionally requires jurors to have an “abiding conviction” or “moral certainty” that ê committed the crime. The purpose of prosecuting crime under NYPL is to deter crime, to punish those who commit crime, and to confine and rehabilitate criminals in the interest of public safety. A person is guilty of CRIME when DEFINITON.
Analysis: Actus Reus, Mens Rea (unless Strict Liability), Causation (for result crimes).
Conclusion: Therefore, ê [can/cannot, will/will not likely] be convicted of CRIME.
ACTUS REUS
The first issue is whether the actus reus element of CRIME is met. The actus reus is the physical or external part of a crime and is a required element of every crime. Actus reus requires: (1) a voluntary act or an omission where there is a legal duty to act; and (2) the additional conduct, result, or attendant circumstance elements described by the statutory language. Here, the statute does not discuss [Omission / Vol Act], and therefore an analysis of [Vol Act / Omission] is called for.
1a) Voluntary Act:
The first sub-issue is whether ê committed a voluntary act. A voluntary act is a consciously willed bodily movement performed as a result of effort or determination; actions performed while involuntarily intoxicated, or under coercion or hypnosis, are not considered voluntary acts. Here, ê FACTS. [COUNTERARGUMENT if applicable].The facts do not indicate that ê was intoxicated, coerced, or under hypnosis. Therefore, ê’s acts were voluntary.
1b) Omission + Duty:
The first sub-issue is whether ê failed to perform an act which s/he had a legal duty to perform. A legal duty arises (1) when it is imposed by a statute; (2) from the nature of certain relationships (ie., parent/child, spouses, doctor/patient, etc.); (3) from contractual duty (ie., childcare provider); (4) the creation of risk to another person; or (5) from the voluntary assumption of the care of another person, where the actor has isolated the person in a way that prevents others from rendering aid. Here, ê FACTS. Thus, ê [had / did not have] a legal duty to act; therefore ê (satisfies / does not satisfy) the omission + duty element of actus reus.
2) Statutory Language:
The second sub-issue is whether ê’s acts satisfy the [conduct/result/attendant circumstances] defined by the statutory language. The statute requires . Here, FACTS. Therefore, ê [satisfies / does not satisfy] the elements of CRIME as defined by the statute.
3) Conclusion:
Therefore, ê [does / does not] satisfy the actus reus element of CRIME.
MENS REA
The second issue is whether the mens rea element for is satisfied. Mens rea is the mental element of a crime, or the culpability requirement. Under NYPL, the four forms of mens rea are “intentionally,” “knowingly,” “recklessly,” or “criminally negligent;” these elements are the same under the MPC, with the exception of “intentionally,” which is called “purposely” under the MPC.
nt of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless they actually believe the risk doesn’t exist. Here, ê FACTS. Clearly, ê [was / was not] aware that [his / her] [conduct is of the nature described by the offense / a circumstance described by the statute existed]. Therefore, ê [did / did not] act knowingly.
Recklessly:
The [1st/2nd/etc.] sub-issue is whether ê acted recklessly. Under both NYPL and the MPC, a person acts recklessly when he is aware of (SUBJECTIVE) and consciously disregards (OBJECTIVE) a substantial, unjustifiable risk; such disregard must be a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe. Here, FACTS show that ê was aware of FACTS (SUBJECTIVE); FACTS is clearly a substantial, unjustifiable risk. FACTS show that ê consciously disregarded that risk (OBJECTIVE). Clearly, ê [was/was not] aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and ê’s conscious disregard of that risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard a reasonable person would observe. Therefore, ê [acted / did not act] recklessly.
[NOTE: issue is “awareness of the RISK” – not particular result – ie. waving a gun around runs a risk that it will discharge – it doesn’t matter whether she “forgot” the gun was in her hand, did not know it was loaded – what MATTERS is that she was aware of the nature of the gun]
Criminally Negligent:
The [1st/2nd/etc.] sub-issue is whether ê acted with criminal negligence. A person acts negligently when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk; such failure must be a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe. Here, FACTS show that ê . Clearly, ê [did / did not] fail to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk; [IF ê FAILED TO PERCEIVE RISK:] ê’s risk clearly [was / was not] a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe. Therefore, ê [did / did not] act with criminal negligence.
CONCLUSION:
Therefore, ê satisfies / does not satisfy mens rea element of CRIME.
