Crim Law Outline
1. Introduction
A.Nature, Source, and Limits of Criminal Law (P. 1-6)
B. Right to Trial by Jury (P. 6-9)
· Right to a jury in prosecutions [where potential punishment exceeds six months]
C.Proof of Guilt (P. 9-18)
· Prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
· Standard requires that juror’s mind be in a “subjective state of near certitude” of guilt (Not absolute certainty)
D. Jury Nullification (P. 18-25)
· jury has power to ignore the law and return a verdict in disagreement with it. The system does not desire to inform jurors of the power to nullify.
2. Principles of Punishment
A.Theories of Punishment (P. 34-48)
· Retributive Justification
· Negative- Punish because someone did something wrong
· Positive – Punish because society has a right to punish
· Michael S. Moore- we are justified in punishing because and only because offenders deserve it.
· Stephen is assaultive Retributivism: The criminal law proceeds upon the principal that it is morally right to hate criminals, and it confirms and justifies that sentiment by inflicting upon criminals punishments which express it. Focuses on the harm.
· Morris is protective retribution: 1) We have a right to (and to be)punish, 2) It comes from a fundamental right to be treated as persons, 3)Fundamental right is natural, inalienable, and absolute, 4) Denial of this right implies denial of all moral rights
· Kant- Punishment must not be used as a means for a good. It must be used only as punishment for wrongdoing.
· Murphy and Hampton- punishment of the wrongdoer by the victim. Punishment for the benefit of the victim.
· The majority today is more retributive
· Utilitarian Justification
· Since punishment involves pain, it can be justified only if it accomplishes enough good consequences to outweigh the harm
· Purpose of punishment
1) General deterrence – punishing the person who commits the crime will deter
others from committing it. The punishment should be severe enough to
outweigh the benefits of the crime.
2) Individual deterrence – punishment creates fear in the offender so he won’t
offend again. The punishment should be severe enough to outweigh the benefits
of the crime.
3) Incapacitation and other forms of risk management – imprisonment, death
penalty, parole, probation, prevent persons of dangerous dispositions from acting
upon their destructive tendencies.
4) Reform- Reform the criminal so that his wish to commit crimes will lessen.
B. The Penal Theories in Action (P. 48-66)
· Who Should Be Punished?
· How Much (And What) Punishment should be Imposed?
· Probation, Parole, & Political Consideration
C.Constitutional Limits on Punishment
· Proportionality (P. 66-87)
· O’Connor, PROPORTIONALITY TEST (Ewing)
1) compare the gravity of the offence to the harshness of the penalty
2) Can the sentence be linked to a goal of sentencing?
· Factors looked at to determine whether punishment was grossly disproportionate (Coker)
1) Compares rape to murder
2) What have other states done
B. Legality (P. 101-106; 109-116)
· Offenses must be defined by statute (556.026)
· If statute is vague or overly broad, then it violates due process?
o If state statute then it violates 14th Amendment
o If Fed, then it violates 5th Amendment
· A law is void for vagueness if it:
1) Does not give fair warning or notice
2) Invites arbitrary enforcement
3) Prohibits legitimate behavior
3. Statutory Interpretation (P. 116-125)
A.Introduction
· To determine what “carrying” means, the ninth circuit (Foster)
1) Looked at past case law
2) Looked at dictionary meaning
3) Looked at statutory context
4) Looked at statutory intent
5) Considered lenity doctrine
· Lenity doctrine means that when a statute is unclear, it is interpreted in the light most favorable to the defendant.
B. Application: Possession of a Controlled Substance
· The big difference between possession and trafficking, in Mo anyway, it has to do largely with the amount. (§195.223)
· Before looking for dictionary def, look for statutory def. (§195.010)
· Person with knowledge of presence and nature of substance has actual or constructive possession of substance.
Proximity of the controlled substance to person who acknowledges ownership will support possession. State v. Lockhart, State v. Worley.
·Construc
inguished from Intent: Motive Immaterial (EX: Woman steals to feed her kids, noble motive immaterial, only intent to steal matters)
· MPC & RSMo 562.016
INTENTIONAL
· Purpose – A person “acts purposely”, when it is his conscious object to engage in particular conduct or to cause a particular result; awareness of existence of attendant circumstances or a hope that they exist (intends result, no matter how unlikely)
· Knowledge – a person acts knowingly if he is
1. aware of his conduct, aware of attendant circumstances, or aware of the result.
2. practically certain to cause result.
UNJUSTIFIED RISK TAKING
· Recklessness – A person is reckless when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and such disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.
· Negligence – A person is criminally negligent when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or a result will follow.
· MPC 2.02(4): When law defining an offense prescribes required culpability, without distinguishing among the material elements thereof, such provision shall apply to all material elements of offense, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears. Contrary purpose can be determined by looking at grammatical structure:
a. Punctuation
b. Location of term in the statute
· When knowledge of a particular fact is an element of an offense, it is enough to show that D is aware of a high probability PRACTICALLY CERTAIN of its existence. Knowledge or practically certain of result
Not every state has this system. Cali for example deals with malice. For the purpose of the exam, simply note that outside of Mo you need
