Criminal Law
Fall 2007
Professor Bucy
I. Prosecution
A. Deciding what crime to charge
1. Common Law
Commonwealth v. Mochan (Penn. Sup. Ct. 1955)
a. Do crimes not in the penal code (common law crimes) exist?
Yes, although most penal codes will say whether crimes are punishable under common law; usually they aren’t
b. D made obscene phone calls
Intent: shown through pattern of behavior, disregard of who heard
Problems: no notice in common la, disparity of treatment, separation of powers; legislature should determine what is a crime
2. Statutes
Do the facts meet the statutory elements?
Keeler v. Superior Court of Amador County (Cal. 1970)
a. Is the fetus a human being under the statute?
D assaulted a pregnant woman and her baby was injured and still-born.
No. The court looked to the legislative intent from 1850. Human being was someone born alive; feticide was not intended to be considered murder.
b. Court could not expand statute; due process and notice (constitutional problems); is court usurping legislature (separation of powers)
Court was also trying not to weigh in on the abortion issue
United States v. Moore (8th 1988)
a. Is a human bite, from an AIDS victim, a deadly and dangerous weapon?
Yes. Evidence is sufficient that a human bite is deadly and dangerous regardless of AIDS.
Intent: shown through threats of D
Is the statute unconstitutional?
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (US 1972)
a. 5 consolidated cases; arrests made under a very vague statute; basically could be arrested for just about anything
US voided statute as unconstitutional; failed to give notice
b. Broken Window Theory: taking care of the little problems cuts down on the big ones
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, MN (U.S. Sup Ct. 1992)
a. Ordinance was facially unconstitutional because it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses
B. Proving Conduct
1. The importance of the “conduct” element
PATRIOT Act of 2001?
Charges:
-Attempting to disable a mass transportation vehicle
-Attempted destruction of an aircraft
-Placing an explosive device on an airplane
-Interfering with a flight crew’s duties
b. The court holds that an aircraft of the type involved here engages in “mass transportation,” however the plane was determined not to be a “vehicle” as referred to by the statute.
c. The court relied on the Dictionary Act, which allows for the use of dictionary definitions in the absence of a definition in the statute. “Vehicle” was determined to refer to transportation over land.
3. Omissions
People v. Oliver
a. Case of heroin overdose in D’s bathroom
D was charged with and convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
Appellate court affirmed.
b. Involuntary manslaughter à
