CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE
I. OVERVIEW
A. Definition of criminal law method by Henry Hart
“Criminal law regulates behavior by precluding or permitting conduct and apportioning blame.”
At the heart of criminal rule is the prescription of conduct that the community condemns; guilty verdict is the expression of that condemnation.
Legal Excellence
Argue both sides = need to know where rule is unclear
Relate law to rest of world
B. Canonical rule formulation of Statute:
[CRIME] is the [doing of a class of act] [in a particular manner] [in a set of circumstances][in a particular state of mind] by [a class of people]
1. Analyze elements of rule and type of rule – Reconstitute rule
Analyzing rule reconstitutes rule-formulation as a series of necessary and sufficient conditions for criminal liability
A type of person (1) who does a particular act (2) in a particular manner (3) in a particular circumstances (with a particular state of mind).
2. Rule becomes checklist when reading case
The case of Robert “Yummy”Sandifer
D is 11 year-old who at age of 3 threatened a nurse with knife. Mistreated by father. Neglected by mother. D entered gang and received order from gang to kill. Does statute apply? Yes, D knew his acts constitutes 1st degree murder.
3. Parts of statute which needs further interpretation = Unclear
Here, meaning of Intent; meaning of know; meaning of strong probability
4. Research for interpretation
a. statutes/case
b. dictionary (plain & legal)
c. treatise
C. Principles of punishment
1. Goals
a. Retributive principle of Punishment
Criminal should receive punishment commensurate with crime committed. Bring down wrongdoer; repair self-esteem of victim; treat individual as a responsible agent able to participate in social benefits and burdens)
Negative (not concerned with individual’s responsibility)
Positive (assault + Protective)
Sandifer: 11 year-old responsible agent
b. Utilitarian principle of Punishment
Just need to send message ; No need to be found guilty
Deterrence (general + individual) = prevent future wrongdoing
Incapacitation = protect society
Reform (rehabilitation) = help person overcome pathological behavior
Not of these required to find D guilty of crime
Sandifer: rehab? Deter conduct
2. Greenwalt: key characteristics of punishment
a. directed as responsible agents. Is Sandifer (11 year-old) a responsible agent?
i. Is any 11 year-old sufficiently morally culpable to be held criminally liable under IL statute. No not < 13
ii. Is Sandifer sufficiently morally culpable to be held criminally liable
b. imposed on actual or supposed violator of some rule of behavior
c. judgment of condemnation (blame the actor for committing a wrong)
D. Principle of Legality (Mochan)
“nullum crimen sine lege, nulla peona sine lege” No crime should be punishable except under law
Prohibition on retroactive criminal lawmaking. Interpretation of statute cannot be retroactive, but may be applied prospectively for future decisions. Courts cannot create law and apply it retroactively.
D must be able to know what conduct is forbidden and the consequences of breaking the law. Unless adequate notice of criminal behavior is provided, hard to argue that D chose to commit wrongful act.
1. Goals
a. First three requirements of principle of legality
Clarity: understandable to reasonable law-abiding persons, and
Consistency: no ad hoc or subjective application by legal officials, and
Prospective: criminal law justified only when guides future action. No retroactive law = fair warning of criminal conduct and its consequences.
b. Interrelation of legality principle with Constitution
Due process requirement = fair notice that specific conduct constitute an offense
2. Principle of Legality
a. Criminal statutes understandable to reasonable law-abiding persons
b. Criminal statutes should be drafted so as not to delegate policy matters to police, judges and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis
c. Judicial interpretation of ambiguous statutes should be biased in favor of the accused
Commonwealth v. Mochan 1955
D indicted with intending to debauch and corrupt. No statute; No precedent on point for D’s charge. Trial ct says it does not matter b/c D affected public morality. D’s indictment identified the offense as a common law misdemeanor b/c D’s acts (outrage decency and are injurious to public morals is a misdemeanor at common law.” D appealed b/c misdemeanor not a criminal offense. Appeal ct affirmed.
(1) Statute under which D committed a crime: Section 1101 Pennsylvania Penal Code “every offense …punishable by either statute or common law and not provided by this Act continue to be an offense punishable”
(2) Canonical rule for misdemeanor: [CRIME= common law misdemeanor] is the [doing of a class of act= open outraging of decency] [in a particular manner = in a manner injurious to public morals] [in a set of circumstances][in a particular state of mind] by [a class of people= any person]
(3) Interpretation of statute: Quality & Quantity of Interpretation under Legality principle: =statutes understandable to reasonable law-abiding person= not delegate policy matters to police, judge and juries for resolution on a ad hoc and subjective basis.
“open outraging”, “decency”, “public morals”, Determination of “injured”
If the term interpreted before, court will rely on it for its interpretation
(4) Does rule violate the legality principle?
Dissenting: If no law to declare D’s action as crime= they should not
to judicial construction to ascertain legislative will.
– Turn to precedents + codes/ rules
– Turn to judicial construction
4. Court sums up principles for determining whether statute vague
“Vagueness should not be tested for constitutional specificity in a vacuum, but should be judged in light of (1)its common law meaning, (2) its statutory history, (3) the prior judicial interpretation of its particular terms.” =
– no more than reasonable amount of certainty can be demanded
– untold and unforeseen variations in factual situations
– turn to common law if common law interpretation
– If no common law, turn to statutory history
Presumption of constitutionality = If statute cannot be interpreted in a manner that is constitutional, then assume constitutionality
Balance strict construction (plain meaning) against purpose of statute (evil to be suppressed; legislative history)
5. Overbreadth Problem
Language deters free exercise of permitted conduct
a. Law guides action, but tends to regulate too much action
b. Prohibits constitutionally protected conduct
In re Banks (common law crime) Doctrine of Vagueness
D peeping into a room occupied by a woman. Statute derives from common law crime.
Canonical form: [CRIME = SECRETLY PEEING INTO ROOM OCCUPIED BY FEMALE PERSON] is the [the doing of a class of act = peeing ] [in a particular manner: secretly] [in a set of circumstances= into a room occupied by a female person] [in a particular state of mind: none specified here][ by a person]
Identify which parts of rule which require further interpretation
“peeping= defined by previous cases”,
“secretly = hidden from view; w/o knowledge of person viewed.” = prior cases show intent = action which is deliberate = intent to invade privacy
If ‘secret” not in statute = start criminalizing normal conduct.
What’s the problem with criminalizing “into any room occupied by a female person”
Here, not a problem of due process = = law prohibiting looking into a room occupied by female may be clear, consistent & prospective.
check for authorities which defines those words
6. Chilling effect
Prescription of legitimate conduct:
– inhibits “exercise of basic freedom”
– leads citizens to steer far wider of the unlawful zone
