I. Introduction to Criminal Law
Owens v. State: officer responded to a civilian call of a suspicious car driving erratically, in his automobile passed out with a beer can in his lap and two empty ones in the car. He was in the car with it running, lights on, and parked in a driveway.
Common Law Rule:A conviction among circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Conviction can be sustained if there is an amount of circumstantial evidence that mounts to no other circumstance other than guilt.
Holding: in consideration of all circumstances (the level of intoxication, state of the vehicle, and the phone call) that it was reasonable to conclude that the defendant had just finished driving while intoxicated. The evidence bringing the trooper to the car appears to be the most convincing.
State v. Ragland: A trial the judge gave the jury instructions using the word “must” in regards to the conviction, and did not tell about Nullification power. Must judge instruct about nullification power? NO
Rule: Jury Nullification is the jury’s power to disregard the evidence and find for the defendant when they feel some sympathy for him or in instances in which they did not agree with the rule under which the person was charged.
II. Principles of Punishment
Retributivism (Kent Greenwald): people who commit crimes deserve punishment.
Utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham): punishment serves several useful purposes for society
Penal Theories in Action (who should be punished?)
Queen v. Dudley and Stevens:Here the two men Dudley and Stevens assented to kill the “weaker” boy on the ship in order to survive and feed upon his body. Although boy in much weaker condition, no justification to killing.
They were originally sentenced to death (retributive) and the sentence was later reduced to 6 months in prison (utilitarian). Dudley and Stevens are guilty of committing the felony of murder as alleged in the indictment.
People v. Superior Court (Du): In this case the judge presented an analysis of why she lowered the sentence of Du from 10 years in prison (retributive) to probation (utilitarian) for the murder of 15 year old Latasha.
Rule: The judge had to answer the following questions regarding sentencing in her analysis: would the imprisonment of Du (1) protect society, (2) punish the defendant, (3) encourage the defendant to lead a law-abiding life, (4) deter others, (5) isolate the defendant so that she may not commit other crimes, (6) secure restitution for the victim, and (7) seek uniformity in sentencing?
judge determined that: The presumption in this case is against probation because a firearm was used; however this statute is specifically aimed at criminals who arm themselves when they go out to commit crimes. Second the defendant has no record of any other like crimes, and she responded in a situation under great provocation, duress and coercion. The victim although did not have a firearm used her hands as weapons just minutes before the shooting. There cannot be a conclusion from the evidence that there was any degree of criminal sophistication in the offense, nor can it be concluded that she is a danger to others is she is not incarcerated.
Proportionality of Punishment
Ewing v. California: Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit the state of California form sentencing a repeat felon to a prison term of 25 years to life under the State’s “Three Strike and You’re Out” law. Ewing walked into the pro shop and walked out with three golf clubs priced at $399 each concealed in his pant leg. The police apprehended him in the parking lot.
Rule: California’s 3 strikes law was it grossly disproportionate to have the 3 strikes law?
Holding: 8th Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence. Rather, it forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime.
Harmelin refined Solem v. Helm: There are two factors in determining whether a sentence is disproportionate:
FIRST, make a threshold comparison of the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty, IF disproportionality crosses that threshold THEN examine:
Sentences imposed on other criminals for commission of:
the same crime in other jurisdictions
Similar crimes is same jurisdiction
4 principles that should guide proportionality review
Primacy of the legislature
The variety of the penological schemes
Nature of federal system
Objectiv
ute must be sufficiently definite to give notice to the required conduct that one must avoid in order to avoid penalties under the law. (Void for vagueness)
Holding: The court held that statute is sufficiently definite to give an individual fair notice of the conduct prohibited, and to guide the application of the law. The statute is also not unconstitutional for over breadth.
The court looked at the dictionary meaning of the word carrying, legislative intent, common law, looked another statute, looked at words within the statute (uses) and concluded defendant wasn’t carrying a firearm. This case also illustrates all three principle of legality.
In formulating its decision, the court looked at:
(1) was clear and unambiguous on its face you simply look at it and apply it, and
(2) If it is ambiguous then you interpret the statute to determine legislative intent. Look at the purposes of the statute appearing from:
· The whole, the phraseology of the words
· The law as it prevailed before the statute
· The mischief to be remedied
· The remedy
· The end to be accomplished
· The statute in pari materia (preamble, title, etc.)
· Also look at the legislative history, earlier statutes on the same subject, common law at the time of the statute and interpretations of similar statutes
· Words are not presumed to be redundant
· Statutes in this jurisdiction
· Statutes in other jurisdictions
Lenity/Strict Construction: directs that judicial resolution of residual uncertainty in the meaning of penal statutes be biased in favor of the accused. Serves as a tiebreaker. After all other interpretive means have been exhausted and leave courts unable to determine the meaning of a statute; it will be construed strictly against the government.
