Criminal Law Outline
Professor Michael Rich
Elon University School of Law
Spring 2014
I. Punishment
a. Proof
i. When the totality of the circumstances indicates an inference or more likely scenario of guilt rather than innocence
ii. Owens v. State: “A conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence”
b. Why We Punish (2 Approaches)
i. Retributive – Backward looking (look at what they did and determine if its wrong/punishable)
1. People who commit crimes deserve punishment
2. The justification for punishment is found in the prior wrongdoing
3. Punishes the person just because they did something wrong; not other reason
ii. Utilitarian – Forward looking
1. Punishment is justified on the basis of the supposed benefits that will accrue from its imposition
2. We punish to accomplish some future benefit for society
3. Benefits:
a. General deterrence
b. Individual deterrence
c. Incapacitation – keeping people from doing more bad things
d. Reform/Rehabilitation
iii. Mixed – page 58
1. Punishment is utilitarian within the boundaries of retribution
a. State cannot punish someone unless he commits a crime
b. Cannot punish disproportionate of the crime
c. If no good would come of punishment, then no punishment
2. Punishment is retributive within the boundaries of utilitarianism
a. Max and min punishments are set on the basis of retribution
b. Utilitarian goals determine the sentence within these parameters
iv. The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens
1. Boat cannibalism
c. How We Punish (How much and what punishment should be imposed?)
i. Indeterminate Sentencing:
1. Judges have a broad amount of discretion
a. I.e. a term of years not exceeding 10; judge could sentence anywhere from 0-10 years, probation, or something else
b. The sentencing is indeterminate in that the judge and not the legislature sets the appropriate punishment for each offender within very broad legislative imposed parameters
2. Pure Indeterminate
a. The judge herself imposes an indeterminate sentence
i. I.e. a term, the minimum of which, shall be fixed by the court at not less than one year nor more than ten years, and the maximum of which, shall be life imprisonment
ii. In this sense, the offender does not know the exact sentence when heading off to prison, but it will be determined by a parole board based on the inmate’s behavior, progress, etc. while in prison
3. Indeterminate sentencing is not really favored bc it is so discretionary that many of the same offenses result in very different sentences. Some felt that the parole boards were too lenient on the offenders. Most courts have shifted to determinate sentencing
ii. Determinate
1. In a Majority of states– sentencing programs via sentencing guidelines
a. Guidelines specify as presumptive range of sentencing lengths such as “16-24 months” which still allow for discretion depending on the facts of the case
2. In some jurisdictions – he legislature sets a specific sentence for each crime
a. Still leaves room for mitigating and aggravating circumstances to influence where proven to exist
b. Parole boards do not exist in these jurisdictions
d. Determining Punishment
i. Objectives to consider when sentencing the defendant:
1. To protect society
2. To punish the defendant for committing a crime
3. To encourage the defendant to lead a law-abiding life
4. To deter others
5. To isolate the defendant so she can’t commit other crimes
6. To secure restitution for the victim; and
7. To seek uniformity in sentencing
II. Statutory Principles/Interpretation
a. Principles of Legality:
b. Three corollaries of legality principle
i. Legality: A person may not be convicted and punished unless his conduct was defined as criminal at the moment the act was committed
1. Cannot be convicted of/punished for something unless the behavior was defined as criminal via statute
a. No ex post facto (after the fact) – violates Due Process – fair warning
ii. Rule Against Vagueness: Statutes cannot be so vague that they are not uniformly applied
1. Criminal statutes should be understandable and comprehensible to reasonable law-abiding persons
2. Criminal statutes should be crafted so that they do not delegate basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on a subjective basis
3. Case law takeaways:
a. If interpretation could result in unconstitutional or constitutional, must interpret in a way that is constitutional
b. Statutes are to be construed as narrowly as possible to prohibit the exact conduct the statute intends to prohibit
c. A statute that is too overbroad is unconstitutional bc it allows potential punishment to innocent behavior and leaves too much subjective discretion to policemen, judges, and juries
d. Where a statute is ambiguous or unclear in its meaning, look to the legislative intent to determine the will of the legislature when drafting
iii. Lenity: Ambiguous statutes must be interpreted in favor of the accused person (Lenity Doctrine)
1. Statutes that are ambiguous on their face should be strictly construed in favor of the accused
2. Almost NEVER applies anymore. This is sort of a doctrine of last resort
a. Courts would rather find a winner and loser somehow before resorting to the tie-breaker that is the lenity doctrine
c. Always consider the legislative intent. This is the important part!!!!
i. Consider the intent a the time the statute was drafted
ii. If the legislature adopts some but not all, or adds more, than what is in another code (i.e. MPC) this is on purpose and must determine why they did this
iii. Determining legislative intent:
1. Legislative language – consider the language in other statutes on the same subject of this statute
2. Prior case law – interpreting this language as used in other cases
3. Common law – which common law fence did this statute derive from
4. Policy
III. Elements of a Crime
a. The elements to go through:
i. Voluntary Act
ii. Social Harm
iii. Mens Rea
i. The defendant must have a “conscious objective” to achieve the harm defined or that the defendant was consciously aware that the harm defined was practically certain to be caused by his conduct
2. Conduct Crimes
a. These crimes endanger a socially valuable interest since these crimes are crimes specifically to prevent the conduct that creates these harms from occurring
b. The increased risk or threat to societal interest is the social harm
c. Punishes the conduct itself
3. Attendant Circumstances
a. A condition must be present in conjunction with the prohibited conduct or result in order to constitute a crime
b. Facts that have to be true for the crime to be committed but doesn’t really fit into other elements
i. I.e. “It is an offense to drive an automobile in an intoxicated condition” …the “automobile” (it MUST be an automobile) and “intoxicated condition” are the attendant circumstances: the actus reus does not occur unless the actor drives her car while intoxicated
ii. I.e. “Purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes the death of another human being” …attendant circumstance is “of another human being.” It MUST be another human being. Dogs don’t count.
c. Mens Rea
i. The mental ingredient: “A guilty mind, wrongful purpose; criminal intent”
1. “Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked”
ii. Two Approaches
1. Elemental Approach – Prosecutor must prove that the defendant committed each material element of the charged offense with the particular required state of mind
2. Culpability Approach – any bad mindset is bad enough for guilt
a. Guilt is based simply on proof that the defendant committed the actus reus of an offense in a morally blameworthy manner
iii. Common Law Intent
1. Rule: Conscious objective or purpose OR consciously aware that harm is practically certain to be caused by def’s conduct
2. Levels of Culpability
a. Intent (Intentionally or Knowingly)
b. Recklessness – unintentional
c. Negligence – unintentional
3. When mens rea is unstated, negligence is sufficient
a. Note this is a general rule, so its not ALWAYS the case (i.e. rape)
4. Intentionally
a. Purposefully
b. Willfully—generally synonymous with intentional; done with a bad purpose, evil motive, etc.
i. Does not mean that he must know what he is doing is illegal
5. Knowingly (consciously knowing/knew or should have known)
6. Recklessly: conscious disregard of a risk
