Criminal Law
Steinman
Spring 2012
Ch. 2: Justification of punishment: what to punish
I. Enforcement of morals
a. Wolfenden report – law shouldn’t be in private morality unless contrary to public good
b. Devlin – law and morality intertwined and morals should be enforced
c. Harm principle – only punish moral wrong if actual harm occur
d. Legal moralists – law should protect morals
II. Seminal issues in crim. Law
a. nature of criminal liability
b. justification of criminalization
c. cost of criminalization
d. effectiveness of alternatives
III. purpose of crim law
a. crime prevention
b. enhancement of freedom
c. doing justice
d. moral responsibility
IV. substance of crim law
a. offense
b. guilt
c. punishment
Ch 8: EXCULPATION
CRUEL & UNUSUAL punishments in violation of 8th Amendment
– may be violated where:
o DISPROPORTIONATE punishment (confinement
o STATUS of offense (crime)
o ABSENCE of ACT by def (conviction)
o ABSENCE of VOLUNTARY act (conviction)
– Robinson v. CA (1962)
o RULE: cant punish for a status – inflicts CRUEL & UNUSUAL punishment in violation of 8th amendment
o Rationale: like punishing disease, may by innocent or involuntary, results in stigma (concur see as cruel)
– Powell v TX (1968)
o HELD: unable to conclude that C As suffer from such an irresistible compulsion to drink and get drunk in public that they are unable to control either or both of these acts and cannot be deterred from public intox. such that it is unconstitutional to punish for this
o RULE: Penalty proper where accused commit actus reus which society has interest in preventing
o Rationale:
i. moral accountability
ii. not just status, but act (in public)
iii. commitment for addiction could be worse, unending, bad conditions
o NOTES:
§ “use” left out of statue – defense would argue use and addiction inseparable
· DA may counter regulation includes use and therefore left out for redundancy
§ Courts concern w/ health and safety
– State ex rel. harper v. Zeeger (WV 1982)
o HELD: criminal punishment of chronic alcoholics for public intoxication is cruel & unusual
DEFINING CRIMINAL CONDUCT
– criminal acts require 2 essential elements
1. Act (ACTUS REUS)
2. State of mind (MENS REA)
ACTUS REUS (culpable conduct)
– VOLUNTARY act (OR OMISSION) required for conviction
– POLICIES
o Not punish for thoughts alone
o Cant deter involuntary acts
– MPC: 3 types of “acts” that are involuntary
o (1) reflex or convulsion
o (2) unconsciousness or sleep
o (3) hypnosis
§ HABITS are considered voluntary
– somnambulism (crimes committed while sleep walking) not voluntary act
– epilepsy – voluntary act of driving w/knowledge of condition could result in criminal negligence
Martin v. State (AL – 1944)
– RULE: actus reus is required for conviction; an intoxicated person who is involuntarily and forcibly carried into public by arresting officer cannot be convicted of “public intoxication”
People v. Newton (CA appeals – 1970)
– RULE: where not self-induced (e.g. by voluntary intoxication) unconsciousness is a complete defense (here, to homicide) because it negates the requirement of actus reus
– UNIVERSAL RULE – unconsciousness is not voluntary act – differ on what is unconscious
– OMISSIONS as voluntary act
o will only be liable for omission 2 ways – MAJ / MPC
§ (1) STATUTE requires act
· minority require to render aid in certain situations or to report crimes
§ (2) LEGAL DUTY is owed
· special relationship (e.g. parent/child, husband/wife, crew/passenger)
· contractual created duty
· undertaking
· creation of risk
o policies related to finding a legal duty: vagueness and uncertainty, problems of proof, problems of enforcement, too expansive views of criminal liability, proper roles of courts and legislatures, liability and individuality, rescuers deterred
– Jones v. US (US appeals – 1962)
o RULE: failure to provide 10 month old necessities resulting in death will not criminal unless owed LEGAL DUTY (not parent here) – may then result in manslaughter charge
– Pope v. State (MD appeals – 1979)
o RULE: felony child abuse by omission require legal duty (parents, or in loco parentis) + abuse
– POSSESSION as voluntary act
o MAJORITY – require person to be AWARE of the thing which they are possessing
§ Deliberate ignorance equated w/positive knowledge
o CA – require
§ (1) D KNOW of presence of item
§ (2) KNOW it is a controlled substance (not matter if kn
reates SUBSTANTIAL and UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK of which he OUGHT to be aware
· If failure to perceive the risk is gross deviation from reasonable care
· Substantially of risk weighed by jury
o NO mens rea = STRICT LIABILITY
§ Generally “public welfare” crimes – usually fines, no confinement
§ More serious (common law) – STATUTORY rape?, Bigamy – not in all jurisidictions…
– DEFENSES relevant to mens rea – absence or moral blame (excuse)
o Involuntary act, duress (not to homicide), legal insanity, accident and mistake
– distinguishing recklessness from negligence – awareness
– distinguishing recklessness from knowledge
o Diff between knowing a legally troubling circumstance exists and being aware that it probably exists?
o WILLFULL BLINDNESS (deliberate ignorance) equated with positive knowledge in certain circumstances
§ Ie) drugs, theft, securites fraud, environmental pollution and others to aid prosecution w/o satsifiying knowledge
§ OBJECTIVE awareness of HIGH PROBABILITY and purposeful avoidance of ACTUAL knowledge
US v Jewell (9th circuit appeals – 1976)
– RULE: knowingly can be act with positive knowledge but also act with an AWARENESS of HIGH PROB of existence of fact in question; where such awareness is present, POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE is NOT required
INTOXICATION
VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
– VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION is ONLY relevant to SPECIFIC intent crimes
o May negate the required specific intent (mens rea)
o GENERAL INTENT crimes – intoxicated persons are considered able to from general intent
o MAJORITY and CA
– MPC – defense if it negatives element of the crime (2.08(1)) – BUT doesn’t negate recklessness where intoxication makes actor unaware of the risk
– Distinction may be drawn regarding specific intent – if intent is foemed prior to drinking, will not negate – (IE) drinks for COURAGE
– May be relevant to negate PREMEDITATION for first degree murder
