Carpe Diem!!!
Criminal Law Outline
Professor Batey
1) Introduction
a) Aeschylus
i) The problem with “eye for eye” justice is it never ends.
ii) As in CL, judge (Athena) forgoes punishment of an individual to accomplish her goals. Rarely is CL only about punishing those before the court
2) INTRODUCTION OF THE MODEL PENAL CODE
a) The American Law Institute published the Model Penal Code in 1962
i) took over ten years to make
ii) substantially influenced many states
(1) about 37 substantially revised their codes along lines of MPC
(2) attempt to get away from need of common law
(3) best to use MPC in comparison to common law because that is its roots
3) CHAPTER ONE: THE CRIMINAL ACT
a) SECTION 1: THE REQUIREMENT OF PREVIOUSLY DEFINED CONDUCT
i) Subsection A: The Principle of Legality
(1) Rex v. Manley–1932 England Elizabeth Manley falsely told police that a man attacked her. She was charged with public mischief. She appealed stating that she broke no law. Breaking the concept of legality, because she was charged although there was no law broken (ex post facto). Important because this marked a point where the courts again began creating common law to contemporary society’s dismay. Stands for courts not making criminal common law. Highly criticized.
(a) Ex post facto applies only to criminal statutes. Ex post Facto is allowed for tax laws or civil laws
(2) Random note: Every criminal case starts with a charging document such as the indictment–in US this comes from a grand jury. Another charging document is called an “information” which a prosecutor can produce without a grand jury. In FL an information is sufficient on all but capital crimes. True in half the states.
(3) Notes on The Principle of Legality
(a) Forbids the retroactive definition of crime
(b) Courts are banned from judicial crime creation
(i) otherwise, arbitrary and discriminatory policing and enforcement
(c) Common law tradition exists in torts and contracts but NOT in criminal law
(i) We need to know ahead of time what we are allowed and are not allowed to do
(ii) maintain separation of powers
(d) Statutes must be created and then the courts can help
(e) All crime has to be statutory in 2/3 of American jurisdictions. 1/3 courts are allowed to prosecute previous recognized common law
(i) in Fl. both can be prosecuted
ii) Subsection B: The Vagueness Doctrine
(1) Parker v. Levy–US Supreme Court 1974. Levy was court marshaled for refusing to do his duties in training the SF Troops. He claimed duties were against his medical ethics. He claimed that Articles 133 & 134 of the military codes were unconstitutionally too vague. Court upheld Levy’s conviction because he had fair notice from the language of each article that the particular conduct which he engaged in was punishable. These articles need the flexibility to manage the military personnel–necessity of ambiguity. Also, manual for court martial does focus and narrow article 134 and therefore 133 piggybacks. Dissent called the articles unconstitutionally vague which violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment. IMPORTANCE: necessity allows these articles to exist although vague.
(2) Notes on the Vagueness Doctrine
(a) Vagueness Check
(i) Does statute language give fair notice and avoid arbitrary enforcement?
(ii) Has court defined issue through common law?
(iii) Has there been any administrational non-judicial interpretation?
1.(like the military manual for courts martial)
(iv) Is the vagueness tolerable?
1.Is it necessary for some important legislative goal?
2.can it be any clearer?
(v) Any impingement on protected or desired conduct (like an infringement on free speech) will make a vague statute intolerable.
(b) 2 flaws in a vague statute
(i) fails to give adequate notice of what conduct is proscribed
1. Irrational because most people don’t read statutes anyway
(ii) Invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement
1. Virtually any law also allows arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement
(c) Illustrative Cases: Coates and Papachristou
(i)Papachristou-mixed couples arrested. If not found vague then possible chilling affect
(d) Tolerable Vagueness and Questions of Degree
(i) The due process clause is violated if a law abiding person would still have to guess the meaning of a statute after her attorney conducts research into its meaning
(e) Overbreadth is a concern of the first amendment. A law is overbroad if it prohibits not only acts that legislation may forbid, but also acts that the first amendment makes immune to such a regulation
(f) The Relation between Vagueness and Overbreadth: As Applied vs. Facial Review
(i) facial review means that if a defendant can prove that in another case this item would be unconstitutional, then it is not applicable to this defendant either
(ii) facial review forces the ct to deal with the constitutionality of cases NOT before the ct
(iii) Normally “as applied” rule is used. Exception is under overbreadth where free speech may be hindered, facial review is called for because you do not want a chilling effect.
iii)Strict Construction in Favor of the Defendant
(1)definition: Construe penal statute as favorably to defendant as language and circumstances will allow
(2)legislature will usually respond to Court’s interpretation if don’t agree with it
(3)usually expand definition if no other crime can be charged
(4) may be viewed as a junior version of the vagueness doctrine
(5) legislatures and not cts should define criminal activity, thus, where there is ambiguity in a criminal statute, doubts are resolved in favor of the defendant
b) SECTION 2: CONDUCT IN THE DEFINITION OF THE OFFENSE
i) Subsection A: Acts
(1) K
uggs test) to limit statute. Now FL uses this test too. Stacking of charges is a problem because it gives the prosecutor too much power in the form of bargaining. Dissent: The confinements and movements of the victims were not sufficiently of separate significance to constitute the separate offenses of kidnapping. Calling this kidnapping is stacking criminal convictions. This will water down the effect of charging someone with kidnapping, lessens determent of a criminal from just going ahead with a more severe crime because he believes he will be charged with it anyway.
(a) Class Supplement: State of FL v. Tomblin District Ct Appeals 1981: Prisoner Tomblin set his clothes on fire in jail. State says his clothes were contents as intended in statute of first degree arson. Trial court granted motion to dismiss because clothing is not contents of cell. This case shows ct interpreting statute broadly because his clothes were not contents of cell, yet court held him guilty of burning contents. Dissent worries that if such a broad reading can lead to absurdity i.e., lighting candles in a church is arson (reductio ad absurdum). Example of broad construction.
(i) Class supplement examples:
1. siphoning gasoline, not entry, no burglary
2. taking hubcaps, not entry, no burglary
3. reaching into hoodless car, not entry, no burglary
4. loosening a bolt under car is burglary
ii) Subsection B: Omissions
(1)need legal duty in order to be criminally responsible for failure to act
(2) Jones v. US US Ct Appeals 1962: Shirley Green left her baby to Jones for care. Facts in dispute about who was in charge of child. Child died from malnutrition. Issue: Did Jones assume care of Anthony Lee and therefore seclude him from mother his natural protector? Holding: reversed and remanded to clarify these facts. Rule: To make one chargeable with manslaughter the duty neglected must be a legal duty and not a mere moral obligation. The omission of the duty must be the immediate and direct cause of death. Importance: Criminal liability may be based on an omission only where there is a legal duty to act. Moral obligation just ain’t enough. Jones limits the reach of the penal statute on homicide by saying that failure to act can only be manslaughter when it breaches a legal duty.
(3) Notes on Omissions
(a) A Duty to Act
