Rochvarg – Criminal Law – Fall 2013
1. SOURCES OF CRIME
A. Statutes: Written rules determined by the legislative branch of governments
Statute are the “Black letter law”, and are strictly interpreted.
UNITED STATES v REID: Reid argued he did not violate a US Patriot Act law of attempting to “wreck… a mass transportation vehicle” because a plane is not a vehicle.
Holding: The Federal dictionary Act (statute) explicitly categorize conveyances as vehicles, vessels, and aircraft. Planes are aircraft, not vehicles. Innocent.
àStatutes can be overruled by the judicial system if they are found unconstitutional
àNothing is to be punished as a federal crime unless there is a statute prohibiting the action. There are no federal common law crimes.
àA statute must be understandable to an reasonable person and written with a sufficient amount of definiteness. It cannot be overly vague. (Void for Vagueness)
KOLENDER v LAWSON: Lawson was arrested repeatedly for failing to provide a “credible ID” to a requesting law officer. He sued, claiming the law was unconstitutional in its vagueness.
Holding: Law was too vague, and gave arbitrary authority to police officers. Innocent.
àTo interpret statutes, one should look at legislative intent and legislative history.
JOHNSON v STATE: A woman gave birth to a crack-addicted baby. Prosecutors charged her with distributing drugs to a minor, arguing that drugs flowed through the cord blood before cord was cut.
Holding: Such an act was not defined in the statute nor the intent of the statute, and that a “crack baby” statute had been considered and rejected by the court. Innocent.
The Rule of Lenity – if a court finds a statute could yield 2 equal interpretations, it will rule in favor of the defendant. Why? Because our criminal system gives defendant benefit of doubt. If doubt exists, court will rule in favor of defendant by invalidating statute or applying a more favorable interpretation
Void for Vagueness- If the public cannot interpret the law, and thus has no way to know how to comply with it, the law may be void.
Requires:
· Person must have notice
· Cops know who to arrest
· Objective Reasonable Person standard
· Purpose of rule is to deter arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement
B. Common Law: Rules carried over from English roots that remain laws today
· Legislation can overrule common law by passing new statutes.
· Common law is dynamic and adaptable, thus can be adjusted or completely abolished by the decisions of the judicial system
STATE v PALENDRANO: Palendrano was charged with being a “common scold”, an archaic common law punishing “troublesome women”.
Holding: The law is unconstitutional in its singling out of women, and is thus abolished. Innocent.
2.ACTUS REUS
Definition: Actus reus is the criminal act / prohibited conduct. Almost every crime must have an act (actus reus) and a mental state (mens rea). These two requirements must be performed together (you must perform the act with the requisite state of mind at that time) to be found guilty of a crime.
Voluntary Act: The actus reus must be a voluntary act. An involuntary act, such as a seizure or sleepwalking, cannot be classified as a criminal act. Acts performed because of drunkenness/drug use are not considered involuntary.
àStatus is Involuntary: Pure status cannot be a crime. You cannot criminalize a status – and you also cannot criminalize an act that is integral to and an unavoidable result of that status.
JONES v LOS ANGELES: A statute prohibited sleeping or resting on public sidewalks.
Holding: The statute was unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment) because it was criminalizing the status of being homeless. The homeless had no place to go, homelessness can be involuntary. Innocent.
ROBINSON: A statute prohibited the statute of “being addicted to drugs within the state”. Holding: The statute was unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment) because it was criminalizing the status of being addicted, rather than the act of using drugs. Drug addiction can be involuntary (crack babies), or the person may have done drugs in another state and then crossed the state line. Innocent.
POWELL: A statute prohibited being drunk in public. Powell argued he was an alcoholic, his drunkenness was involuntary.
Holding: The voluntary act was not being drunk, the voluntary act was being in public. The statute is constitutional. Guilty.
The Act of Omission: The “act” of not acting is normally not a crime, but can be a crime, if:
a statute requires action and defines omission to be a crime (example: it is a crime not to pay taxes) you have a legal obligation to act because of a special relationship (example: parents have a legal obligation to care for their children) you have a contractual obligation to act:
COMMONWEALTH v PESTINIKAS: The Pestinikasʼ agreed to care for an elderly man in their home. Instead, they brought him to a r
you are committing the act, not the crime
US v INTERNATIONAL MINERALS: Federal crime to violate a federal regulation. It is against federal regulation to “knowingly” ship caustic chemicals without labeling the package. Defendant claims he was unaware of the regulation, so had no mens rea. Debate as to what “knowingly” means – do you have to know you are violating a statute, or just know you are shipping an acid? Holding: This was a general intent knowledge crime – you only had to know you are shipping acid. Guilty.
ii. “Willful Blindness”: acts of a person who intentionally fails to be informed about matters that would make the person criminally liable
Model Penal Code says: if Prosecution can prove willful blindness, knowledge mens rea applies
C. Recklessness Crimes:
COMMONWEALTH v HUGGINS: Man was driving a 15-person van loaded with 24 people. Many were kids and many did not wear seat belts. The driver was speeding, despite being tired. He fell asleep at the wheel, causing an accident. Two children died.
Holding: Mens rea for involuntary manslaughter – gross negligence (recklessness). He did not act with the purpose to kill, nor did he know his actions would result in deaths. Yet, he drove recklessly. Guilty.
D. Negligence Crimes:
STATE v GOFF: Women left her 2 kids (8 yrs old, 2 yrs old) home alone for 5 hours while she drank heavily at a halloween party in a bar. The older child played with matches left out on the table and started a house fire. Both children died.
Holding: Mens rea of Child Neglect – Criminal Negligence. The mother left with the purpose of drinking, rather than an emergency or some other excusable action. Guilty.
E. Strict Liability: Strict Liability Crimes require no mens rea.
STATE v MILLER: Defendant was sick, his friend gives him a “home remedy” spiked with alcohol. He drove home, got a DUI, & claimed he had no knowledge that he was drunk.
Holding: Driving drunk is a strict liability crime and requires no mens rea. Guilty.
