Criminal Law Outline

CRIMINAL LAW CLARK SPRING 2015

CRIMINAL LAW OBJECTIVES.

a. Rule of Leniency—if there is ambiguity / multiple interpretations of a statute, construe in favor of the accused

b. Crime = actus reus + mens rea + circumstance + causation + result – defense

A crime requires a choice (act / omission) but choice alone is insufficient—generally there is some knowledge and it is crucial to know intent and state of mind.

1. PRINCIPLES OF PUNISHMENT.

A. Criminal law statutes and the defenses to crimes are designed to implement the purpose of punishing wrongful conduct that is designated a “crime”.

B. Theories of Punishment.

· Deterrence- an individual will not commit crime for fear of suffering the same punishment that a current D is suffering. This is a Utilitarian Theory- it’s justified by preventing future harm.

· Rehabilitation- also utilitarian theory. Based on the belief that punishing someone for his wrongful acts makes him a better person. Essence of it is reform of the individual.

· Isolation, incapacitation- focuses on isolating wrongdoers from law-abiding people, variation of rehabilitation but does not require the person to change his behavior.

· Education- punishing wrongdoers educates everyone else regarding the society rules and serves as a general deterrent, also form of rehabilitation.

· Retribution- not a utilitarian principle. It looks to the past to insure that the individual gets what he deserves. The idea is that wrong that has been done must be punished.

THE QUEEN V. DUDLEY AND STEPHENS – man eaten to feed others

i. Ds were stranded on a boat for several days. When it appeared that the whole party would likely die of thirst and starvation. They decided to sacrifice Mr. Parker for the good of the rest.

ii. 2 theories:

1. Rule: A person may not sacrifice a life of another to save his own. The necessity is never a defense for murder.

2. Failed to demonstrate necessity: that life was saved by the killing (lesser of two evils); that there was social utility to the killing; ∆ did not create the necessitous situation; it was the only option to avoid a worse evil.

iii. Verdict. Ds guilty of felony and murder.

C. Appropriateness of Sentence

Burden of Proof MPC §1.12

Elements of a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. BRD

Standard of Review

· Review Applicable Law

· Uphold decision of trial court unless there is some evidence of abuse of discretion.

· Look at the nature of the offense (i.e. premeditated), character of the offender, and protecting of public interest.

STATE V. JENSEN- excessive punishment

i. D appeals her judgment of fixed life sentence imposed upon her plea of guilty to first degree murder by claiming it to be excessive.

ii. D was stalking her ex and killed his g/f by injecting her deadly dose of insulin.

iii. D 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.

iv. When balancing the nature of the offense, character of the offender, and protection of the public interest we determine whether courts have abused their discretion in sentencing. This is the standard of review in this case – “abuse of discretion”.

v. Judges, legislature, prosecution and parole officers all contribute to sentencing.

D. Sentencing under Fed Guidelines

i. Rita – appellate courts can look to reasonableness of sentence in accordance w/ guidelines

ii. Mistretta v. US – limiting judges role and discretion for punishment and parole and increasing legislative and prosecution powers

iii. Sentencing guidelines are only advisory, judges have the ability to look at the reasonableness of sentencing due to the following:

1. Nature and circumstances of the offense and the history 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 criminal conduct

§ To protect the pub from further crimes of the D and

§ To provide D w/ needed education 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

ii. UNITED STATES V. CRAWFORD- Sentencing under Federal Guideline

i. Crawford was convicted by jury of heroin and crack distribution and sentenced to 210 month imprisonment – the bottom of the applicable guidelines range.

ii. While the D appealed his case, the Court decided Blakely v. Washington case which prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences on the facts other than decided