Criminal Law
Clark
Spring 2012
A. Theories of Pun
ü [Queen v. Dudley and Stephens] ® murder is unlawful homicide w/ malice aforethought. Unlawful allows for justifications and excuses like the older men on the boat had families and were dying of famine and desperation, and that there was no malice but they were left w/ no other option but die or kill sick cabin boy. Sentenced to Fdeath to demonstrate value of human life, even sick cabin boys are worth saving, but were never hung.
Types:
(1) deterrence ® (general) preventing others from committing similar crimes by punishing indiv. (specific) punishing indiv to prevent him from committing more crimes
(2) rehabilitation ® punish to make indiv better person
(3) isolation ® going to prison so you cant hurt innocent ppl
(4) retribution ® indiv gets what he deserves
a. (communicative retrib) to define equal worth of all humans, the value of human life
b. factors to consider: mental state, degree, wrongfulness
B. Sentencing
ü By using aggravating and mitigating circumstances you determine who are the worst offenders and therefore should be punished the harshest [State v. Jensen] ® when balancing the nature of the offense, character of the offender, and protection of the public interest we determine whether crts have abused their discretion in sentencing. Her acts were willful, premeditated, and inhumane and even though she would likely not offend again the seriousness of her poisoning and stalking her ex’s new love shows she needs to be punished
Ø Judges, legs, prosecution and parole bds all contribute to sentencing
C. Sentencing under Fed Guidelines
ü Rita ® appellate crts can look to reasonableness of sentence in accordance w/ guidelines
ü Mistretta ® limiting judges role and discretion for pun and parole and increasing leg and prosecution powers
ü Sentencing guidelines are only advisory, judges have the ability to look at the reasonableness of sentencing due to the following® [US v. Crawford]
1) Nature and circumstances of the offense and the hist and characteristics of D
2) The need for the sentence imposed –
§ To reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense
§ To afford adequate deterrence to crim conduct
§ To protect the pub from further crimes of the D and
§ To provide D w/ needed educ or vocational training, med care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner
3) The kinds of sentencing available
4) Kinds of sentence and sentencing range established for –
§ The applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of D as set forth in the guidelines
D. Proportionality
Ø Pun should fit the crime
Ø 8th Amend: no excessive bail or fines and no cruel or unusual pun
ü Solem Test: (1) gravity of offense and harshness of penalty (2) sentences imposed on similar crims in juris (3) in other juris
ü [Ewing v. Cali] ® sentenced for 25 yrs to life for stealing 3 $400 golf clubs and having 2 prior felony offenses before that. Under the Cali 3 strike law you’re pun increases once you’ve hit you’re 3rd strike. Found const bc it protects its citizens, states rights to pun, and prevent habitual crims from harming further
o Bryer’s Dissent: 8th Amend demands proportionality and 25 yrs for 3 golf clubs is grossly disproportional
E. Capital Pun
ü Atkins ® forbids DP for mentally challenged as cruel and unusual pun bc of their lack of culpability
ü Thompson ® must be older than 16 yrs old
ü 18 yr olds cannot be sentenced to death. Standards of decency are evolving both nationally and internationally bc so few countries and states are doing it. If it is wrong to hold the mentally challenged accountable then the same goes for juveniles. [Ropper v. Simmons] ® juveniles even ones who tie women up w/ friends and throw them over a bridge, lack maturity, vulnerability and character to be held to same standards as adults and they have a greater ability to reform.
Ø Aggravating Factors to consider:
o Murder of peace officer to prevent official duties
o Murder at correctional facility
o Murder of 2 or more ppl w/ intent or knowledge
o Murder w/ infliction of torture (intentional and depraved {D relished the infliction of extreme physical pain upon victim})
o Murder by one who’s already under investigation for a felony
Ø Mitigating ® mental and emotional states
Ø Victim Impact Statements ® victim’s role at sentencing stage.
ü Payne: relevant to determine blameworthiness
ü Bernard: character of victim is relevant
ü Crawford v. State: should be limited so as not to inflame jurors’ emotions
Criminal Statutes
v Double jeopardy rule → can’t be tried twice for the same crime.
o Exception → another state or feds can prosecute you for same crime if juris good (Dual sovereignty)
v Appeals: must demonstrate a legal error
o Insuff E → when the govt fails to present suff E of Ds guilt
o Improper jury instruction → when the crt gives an improper definition of the crime
o Evidentiary challenges → when E is improperly admitted or the crt excluded E relevant to the case
o Const challenge → when the statute, charges, jury instructions, or pre-trial or trial procedure deprived D of a const right
A. Defining a Crime
ü The leg intent should be taken into consideration when trying to determine what certain wrds in the stat mean. [PPl v. Lopez] → the words felonious taking remain the same in the carjacking stat as they are stated in the robbery one. If cong did not want the same element of asportion (taking away) then they would have chosen a different wrd, therefore requiring one to physically take the car away for it to be carjacking.
ü [State v. Donaldson] → when restructuring the legislation they changed the words to possession or control of rather than asportion. This referred to Ds authority to use or have the object in his possession w/c he clearly had no authority to do so.
v Ejursdem generis → interpret general terms in light of the specific terms surrounding it
v Nullem crimen sine lege → has to be written down before you can charge someone
v Rule of Lenity → when a stat is ambig or susceptible to more than one me
ealth] → Ds voluntarily assumed the duty of caregivers and therefore they became legally bound to care prudently for his sister. Failing to do so is criminal conduct.
ü Mere obligation is not enough to render someone criminally liable for failure to act [Beardlsey] → a close relationship is insuff to create a legal duty
v It is not a crime if you fail to report a crime if you are not a party to it → there are no good Samaritan requirements
v If you are in danger you are not required to help the attacker you’ve caused harm to until after you’ve reached safety
v When you have a duty:
ü Statutory duty
ü Duty by status → protecting others (mom and kid
ü By contract → babysitter
ü Voluntary assumption → care giver
ü Duty by risk creation → you created the risk (hit and run) you need to take care of it.
C. Possession as Actus Reus
ü Possession is voluntary when person knowingly procures or receives the thing or acquires control for a suff amt of time to terminate control. Voluntary is while conscious as a result of effort or omitting to perform an act he’s physically capable of. [State v. Winsor] → he voluntary possessed drugs at a jail even if he was not voluntarily at jail.
ü MPC → If you voluntarily possessed drugs before you were arrested and brought them into jail with you that is insuff E to say that you voluntarily brought them into jail → Trippets → it must be R foreseeable or likely consequence of the vol act for w/c you are being arrested for.
ü MPC → possessor has knowingly procure or receive the thing possessed.
ü To prove constructive possession P has to demonstrate D had control or dominion over the room or drugs themselves. [Watson v. State] → since D was sleeping and he was only a visitor of the house he did not have possession
D. Status or Condition
ü It is unconst cruel and usual to pun someone for a condition or status such as mentally challenged or drug addict. [Robinson v. Cali] → there was no present E of drug use, particularly w/in the state and so the act of using could not charged. Using should be criminalized but not the sickness of being addicted to the drugs as the stat indicates.
o Harlan’s concurrence: you have to actually act, can’t criminalize a desire to do something
o White’s dissent: we don’t want addicts!
ü Being drunk will only be accepted as a compulsion but not as a justification to act irrationally, like screaming around town. [Powell v. TX]
o Dissent: its not appropriate to use crim law bc he has a sickness
