Criminal Law Outline

Criminal Law
Miller
Fall 2011
 
Is the defendant competent to stand trial?
 
A.  The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment bars the prosecution of a D who is not competent to stand trial
 
B.  A D is presumed to be fit to stand trial, but
 
(1)  725 ILCS 5/104-10:  D is unfit if he is unable to understand the nature & purpose of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense
 
(2)  Fitness speaks only to a person’s ability to function within the context of trial; it does not refer to sanity or competence in other areas
 
C.  725 ILCS 5/104-11(c): At a hearing to determine the Dt’s fitness to stand trial, the trial ct may conduct its own inquiry into the D’s fitness
 
D.  725 ILCS 5/104-20(a) When a D is found unfit and treatment has been ordered, a trial judge must periodically review the issue of fitness and set the matter for a hearing upon receiving a report that the D has attained fitness
 
Can the defendant plead guilt but mentally ill?
 
Some states & IL, D can plead guilty but mentally ill based upon a mental illness that falls short of insanity
 
      – 720 ILCS 5/6-2(c)- a person who, @ the time of the commission of a criminal offense, was not insane but was suffering from a mental illness, is not relieved of criminal responsibility & may be found guilty but mentally ill
            — punishment = NO prison sentence; just institutionalization
– Insanity = doesn’t know his actions are right/wrong
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
 
(1)  Most states place the burden of proof on D in connection w/ an insanity defense, w/ IL requiring clear & convincing evidence
     
(2)  In IL a person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
 
a.   The terms “mental disease or mental defect” do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct (antisocial personality disorder)
 
–  M’NAGHTEN RULE:  D must clearly prove that @ the time of committing the act, D a) was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature & quality of the act he was doing OR if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.
–  I thought I was killing a tree; I don’t know why murder is wrong
– a schizophrenic that hears voices telling him to murder & understands that it is criminal but does it anyway = would not be exonerated under IL law
IS THE CT ONLY APPLYING A CLEAR CRIMINAL LAW THAT THE LEGISLATURE PUT IN PLACE BEFORE THE ALLEGED CRIME CHARGED ?
Statutory Interpretation
A person may not be convicted & punished unless his conduct was Previously defined as criminal. 
The power to define crimes & fix penalties is vested exclusively in the legislative branch
 
A.  A criminal law applied retroactively violates Due Process Clause
B.  4 types of laws applied retroactively violate the Ex Post Facto Clause
1) laws which criminalize & authorize punishment for acts that = innocent when done; (texting while driving)
2) laws which aggravate a crime or make it greater than when it was committed;
3) laws which inflict a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed; and
4) every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.
BUT, judicial alteration of a common law doctrine of criminal law must not be given retroactive effect, only where it is Unexpected & indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue. (abolishment of year and day rule & diminished capacity)
Lenity: If a statute can be read to favor the govt or the D, it should be read to favor D (only applies language/intent is truly unclear; tie breaker that is rarely applied
Void for Vagueness