Criminal Law Johnston Fall 2016
I – Institutions and Processes – Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
(A) Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
State must prove every element of the crime Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (In re Winship p. 29)
Preponderance of the evidence would be a violation of the due process clause
Facts/PH Reminder: larceny charge, lower court used preponderance of the evidence
Reasoning: Why we have RD Standard?
Presumption of innocence
Reduce risk of convicting the innocent
Command respect of community
Old standard – precedent
When a Case Goes to a Jury
After viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Affirmative Defenses
Affirmative defense – defendant has BoP of an issue going to defense (Patterson p. 37)
Not a violation of Winship to shift the burden
Fact Reminder: estranged husband shoots wife (with considerable provocation)
NY Statute – 2nd Degree Murder: 1) intent to cause death (MR), 2) causing the death (result)
No language about w/out considerable provocation so state doesn’t have to prove that
Unlike Mullaney (Maine) where statute has language about w/out considerable provocation
In this case, the state would have to prove w/o considerable provocation beyond a RD
Dissent – limitations to moving elements out of statute and making them affirmative defenses
II – The Justification of Punishment
(A) Blame and Punishment
Blameworthiness (Dudley v. Stephens p. 73)
Rejects defense of necessity. Guilty of murder even though they could not have been expected to do otherwise than kill Parker to survive. (They weren’t morally blameworthy)
Facts Reminder: shipwreck, cannibals on the sea
Reasoning: Coleridge uses many types of Legal Arguments
Deontological – 1st principle, murder is bad, it’s wrong, it’s immoral
Teleological – based on consequences – Lord Bacon, actually contrary to ruling
Also uses ad hominem attack on Bacon
Slippery Slope – if allow murder for necessity, slippery slope to murder for less dire “necessities”
Analogy – Christ, sailors, war. This case is distinguishable
Persuasive Precedent – US Case, sailors with duty to passengers. This is distinguishable b/c no duty to each other
Sometimes there is conflict b/t fairness to defendant (must be blameworthy) and the need to deter conduct in the community, acknowledge harm to victim, etc.
When considering whether to punish, must consider:
a) is the conduct justified – socially desirable?
Justification ex – self defense, necessity, protection of life or property
b) if not, is the conduct otherwise excusable
Excuse ex – age, duress, intoxication, insanity
(B) Types of Punishment
I – Retributive
Backward-looking
Retribution
Definition: Punishment because someone deserves it. (Moore)
Components:
1) voluntarily committed a criminal act (Moore, Murphy, Hart)
2) proportionality – punishment must be proportional to severity of the crime (Kant, Hart)
3) D must be guilty (Kant)
Deontological argument – punishment morally good. Erase advantage gained (Morris)
Sufficient and Necessary (Moore). Sufficient – society has duty to punish culpable people. It is a benefit, Necessary – no punishment is just unless there is guilt
Critique: 2 wrongs don’t make a right (Hart). Offenders are at disadvantage to start (Murphy).
Vengeance
Definition: expression of hatred. (an offshoot of retribution)
Proponent: Stephen
Predicates: 1) Injury – D needs to commit an injury, 2) resentment & outrage from crime
How different from Retribution:
More emotional. No emphasis on proportionally – punishment may be unduly severe. Require injury (not just moral wrong)
II – Utilitarian
Forward-looking
Punishment is useful for the greater good. (Bentham)
Punishment is evil. Only justified when it prevents a greater evil
Deterrence
Definition: prevention of future crimes (Bentham)
Basis: criminal as a rational actor who calculates benefits of committing crime, severity of punishment, likelihood of getting caught
Specific Deterrence: aimed at deterring individual defendant from committing future crimes
General Deterrence: aimed at other future defendants by example
Critique: criminals don’t actually calculate, people don’t know the law, criminal not rational (Robinson, Darley)
Rehabilitation
Definition: seeks to reform, return to society, and flourish, make safe for society
Basis: criminal as victim of a disease. Society can cure it
Proponent: Menninger
Critique: inconsistency, not proportional to crime (Von Hirsh), financially difficult (Moore), sometimes not work
Incapacitation
Definition: restraining individuals from committing future crimes
Basis: assumption that criminals will commit more crime when released
Proponent: Dilulio
Critique: long sentence, not always repeat crimes
III – Actus Reas
(A) Introduction
Actus Reas – Culpable conduct. The commission of a voluntary act that is prohibited by law
To commit a crime, the D must have voluntarily d
Mother was always present
Fact Reminder: witness extreme abuse, not report or get medical attention
Beardsley – no duty to lover. don’t equate affair to marriage duty
Fact Reminder: watches lover overdose, not get medical attn.
Miranda – no duty of live-in boyfriend to children even if they assume role of step-father
Fact Reminder: didn’t prevent the mother from beating children
MPC § 2.01(3) – Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless: a) the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense or b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
When put a person in peril, a duty to take reasonable measures to save
To determine guilt, analyze intent at moment of voluntary act or culpable omission
Fishing Pier Hypotheticals:
Duty to save when create peril. Bystander no duty. Intermediate “object” no duty
IV – Mens Rea
(A) Introduction
Mens Rea – The kind of awareness/intention that must accompany the prohibited act that defines the offense
Where D intended, expected, or should have expected the action cause consequences
(B) Common Law Conceptions
Malice in the CL –
“Maliciously” defined as requiring an actual intention to do the particular harm done OR foresee that the harm may occur but recklessly continued to do the act (Cunningham p. 243)
Facts Reminder: steal gas meter, gas escapes, leaks through wall, endangers life
Statute: “unlawfully and maliciously administering poison to endanger life of a person”
MR is maliciously. TC incorrectly instruct jury that maliciously = wickedness.
Can’t transfer the MR of one crime to another (ie. Larceny to endanger life charge)
“Maliciously” defined as willful and intentional proven by the fact that the accused knew the injury would be the probable result and proceeded with the act recklessly. Require foresight. Malice = recklessness (Faulkner p. 216)
Facts Reminder: strike a match while trying to steal rum on ship, burn ship down
