CRIMINAL LAW
Prof. Musto
Fall 2010
CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE & CASE BRIEFS
Chapter 1: The Purposes of the Criminal Law
A. A Case Study in Punishment
(1) Regina v. Dudly & Stephens
○ Facts: Dudley and Stephens killed the younger and weaker Parker for food while they were stranded at sea. There were no straws drawn or lots cast. Dudley and Stephens were indicted for murder.
○ Issue: Whether this was a case of murder (maritime cannibalism readily accepted).
○ Slippery Slope: who’s to make the decision in killing someone to preserve your own life? Who is to be the judge of the necessity? What factors into the necessity? What happens in more difficult situations? How do you decide who dies?
■Ex: physician vs. mass murderer? Easy.
■Ex: 4 people; one can steer the boat, one has four kids at home.
○ Public Feeling: widespread acceptance of marine cannibalism. Parker’s brother said they did the right thing.
○ U.S. v. Holmes: should be some mode of selection for choosing who dies; casting lots?
○ There is a lot of discretion in the criminal justice system:
■Discretion by the officer: write a ticket or give a warning.
■Discretion by the prosecutor: what charges to file, youthful offender, number of counts, plea negotiations, whether to even prosecute the case, pre-trial programs, seek death penalty?
■Discretion by the judge: plea negotiations; judge has to agree, conduct at the hearings (rulings), findings of fact, sentencing (limited by guidelines).
■Death Sentence: law establishes certain aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In FL must have one aggravator and weigh it against the mitigating circumstances. In FL, first degree murder death or life in prison w/o parole.
Gilbert v. State (Florida case)
○ Facts: Gilbert killed his wife who had severe alzheimer’s. However, she still got up and got dressed each day, often having lunch with friends. Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to mandatory minimum.
○ Without the rigidity of the statute the judges may not have sentenced him to death. Several mitigating circumstances were at play but the statutory sentencing guidelines prevents the discretion of the judges.
○ Mandatory minimums usually come about b/c of public hostility and tend to cause more trouble than good. Limiting discretion is not a good thing.
○ Purposes of Punishment:
■Deterrence:
● general (prevention)
● specific (the specific defendant)
● Death penalty in theory is a deterrent. If people get off for a crime other people will think they can get away with the crime.
■Retribution/Punishment (moral/social condemnation)
■Rehabilitation (youthful offenders/drug programs)
■Restitution (pay back money from theft or damage)
■Politics
■Prosecutor always has to evaluate the strength of the case. Every time they have discretion it can be abused (i.e., sentencing rich people versus poor people).
Chapter 2: The Requirement of a “Voluntary Act”
A. The Act Requirement
(1) Martin v. State
● Facts: Police arrested appellant at his home and took him onto the highway where he allegedly manifested a drunken condition using loud and profane language. He was convicted of being drunk in public.
● Actus Rea: there has to be a voluntary act. Defendant did not do the act of going in public. Must have a specific act. In each statute there has to be some act that is prohibited.
○ HYPO: What if the house had caught fire and defendant had to run out while still drunk. Not good enought, didn’t voluntarily appear.
○ Every case has elements:
■1. Being drunk.
■2. Voluntarily appearing in public.
■3. Loud and profane.
■The state has to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt and they couldn’t in this case.
(3) Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).
● Facts: Appellant was convicted of being addicted to narcotics after two officers saw evidence of scar tissue and drug use on his arms.
● Holding: Narcotic addiction is an illness which may be contracted innocently or involuntary. A statute which convicts a person of narcotic addiction is cruel and unusual punishment under the Fourteenth Amendment.
○ The court finds the lack of an “act.” Addiction is a status as opposed to an act. Ask the question of what is the act being punished?
● Note 1: Powell v. Texas: Appellant was convicted of being drunk in public; Court said that was an act, appearing in public while an alcoholic.
B. Omissions
● M.P.C. § 2.01 provides that liability can be based on an omission to perform an act of which a person is physically capable.
● Ex: failure to pay income tax or you are criminally liable.
(1) Jones v. United States
● Facts: Appellant had agreed to take care of Green’s children and was to receive money each month to do so. The money stopped being paid after a few month’s and appellant so negligently ignored taking care of the children that the youngest one died. Appellant was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The issue is whether had a legal duty to care of the deceased child.
● Holding: There are at least four situations where the failure to act may constitute breach of a legal duty: (1) where a statute imposes a duty to car
is a presumption that there is some form of a mens rea requirement. A legislature cannot dispense with mens rea but if the statute is silent the Court can presume.
○ Statutory Construction:
■plain language
■legislative history
■severity of sentence
■precedent with similar statute
■purpose of the law; public policy
■common sense
■is there a change from prior language.
● The MPC breaks mens rea down into four categories/generalizations:
○ Purposely: it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.
○ Knowingly: he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist.
○ Recklessly: he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material elements exists or will result from his conduct.
○ Negligently: when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.
● If a statute contains more than one mens rea element you must address each one.
● Strict Liability: no mens rea, i.e., statutory rape.
● Approach a statute with the presumption that there is a mens rea.
Fulcher v. State (pg. 21)
● Facts: defendant claims he was in a state of automatism when he committed the crime.
● Holding: there was mens rea because there was contrary evidence to the automatism. In theory, if you have someone in an automatistic state the mens rea requirement is not met.
Garner v. State (FL case)
○ Defendant shot a guy in barroom while drunk. Wants instruction that voluntary intoxications is a defense.
○ Holding: because of premeditated design of the crime, voluntary intoxication is relevant evidence to the formation of the intent of premeditation. It is a defense to a specific intent crime.
People v. Atkins
○ The defendant committed arson but was drunk at the time.
Similar argument to Garner v. State. Court said voluntary intoxication is not a defense in this case. Won’t negate the existence of general
