CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE
BASICS
Sources of Criminal Law
1. Common Law: The judge made law of each state
a. Most states have abolished common law crimes (Issues with the principle of legality…)
2. Criminal Statutes:
a. Currently, the most common source of criminal law
b. Classifies crimes as either felonies or misdemeanors then further categorizes them based on degree
3. Modern Penal Code (MPC):
a. Not the law in any jurisdiction
b. But large portions have been adopted into the criminal statutes of most of the jurisdictions
c. Sometime looked to by courts for assistance in interpreting their own criminal statutes
Proof of Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
· Presumption of Innocence:The Due Process Clause of the Constitution requires the prosecutor to persuade the factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged
o Supreme court says that the jurors mind must be in a subjective state of near certitude of guilt in order to convict
o Policy: The cost to society of convicting an innocent person is FAR GREATER than the cost of letting guilty people roam free
o So, Even though you might have the burden of proof as the defendant when raising an affirmative defense, the prosecution still retains the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has not proven the affirmative defense
§ In some jurisdictions, however, the defendant holds the entire burden of proof…
· Owens v. State
o The only issue on appeal is whether the jury could have found without a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.
o The issue is not whether the jury should have convicted the defendant in the appellate courts view
§ The jury was actually there for the trial, and is thus more likely to be able to assess the credibility of the witnesses, etc… than the appellate court is able to (Jury is the finder of fact)
§ So, the appellate court can only overturn the conviction if they find that there is no way the jury could have returned the verdict that it did. (Is it at all possible that the jury could find what it did without a reasonable doubt?)
Utilitarianism and Retributivism
The 2 punishment questions that retributivists and utilitarians seek to answer:
1. What is the general justifying aim of the criminal justice system?
2. To whom may punishment be applied, and in what manner and amount?
Utilitarianism: Justification lies in the useful purposes that punishment serves.
· Deterrence:
o Punishment is justifiable if it is expected to result in a reduction of crime
§ General Deterrence: Punishment is enforced in order to deter the community as a whole from committing such crimes
· The benefits to be gained by a particular criminal activity are outweighed by the harms of punishment
· Punishment must be proportional to the crime (Punishment should only be inflicted in the amount required to meet the goals of utilitarianism)
· So, the punishment should only be severe enough to outweigh the benefits gained by the criminal activity, and no more.
§ Individual Deterrence: Punishment is meant to deter future criminal actions by the defendant through preventing him from committing crimes by locking him up and making him not want to commit future crimes because he doesn’t want to get locked up again
· The actual imposition of punishment creates fear in the offender that if he repeats his act, he will be punished again
· Rehabilitation
o Reforms a criminal, so that his desire to commit future crimes is less.
o These are positive steps taken to actually change the person
§ Psychological therapies, medications, etc…
Retributivism: We are justified in punishing because, and only because, offenders deserve it. The defendant should be punished and suffer in order to pay for his crime
· Punishment should be associated on a proportional basis with the harm that is cause or the level of culpability of the offender (So someone who knowingly commits a crime is more culpable than someone who recklessly commits a crime, and thus should be given a worse punishment)
· Only the guilty should be punished, never the innocent. (So someone who had a seizure that caused him to strike someone else does not meet the voluntary requirement of the actus reus, and thus wont be punished – he is innocent)
· People must be aware of the law in order to justify punishing them for breaking it
o Punishment is for voluntarily renouncing the burden others have assumed (Person who violates the rules has something that others do not have, and thus should be punished for the extra benefit they
ute, they must interpret it in the light most favorable to the defendant
o Doctrine of Lenity: If a statute can be interpreted in two ways, one favoring the State, and the other favoring the defendant, the court must interpret it in favor of the defendant
§ Give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.
§ Do not apply the rule of lenity when there is nothing more then a mere possibility that the statute could be viewed in favor of the defendant
§ Only apply it when interpretation of the statute is truly unclear after making requisite investigations into the legislatures intended meaning
Prohibition on ex post facto laws:
· Defendant cannot be convicted for a crime if the actions he committed were done before the legislature enacted the statute that made such actions criminal
· The legislature creates the statutes that make actions crimes
· The court is only to interpret whether the defendant has committed a crime based on the legislatures statute
o Because if the court was just allowed to make up its own crimes and elements (common law source of criminal law), then people don’t have fair warning of what actions constitute crimes
o That’s also why the rule of strict construction and doctrine of lenity exists
o The court is to look at the legislatures intent
§ Based on the language in the statute
§ Based on how common law has interpreted the statute
§ Based on legislative history
MPC 1.02(3):
· Provisions of the code should be interpreted given the fair import of their terms, but..
· If the language is susceptible to different constructions (different interpretations) then:
o It should be interpreted to further the general purposes stated in this section
§ One of these general purposes is to give fair waning of the nature of the conduct declared to constitute an offense
