Select Page

Criminal Law
University of Georgia School of Law
Cook, Julian A.

Criminal Law Outline
Fall 2006
Criminal Law: Cases & Materials
Prof. Cook
 I.      Controversial Crimes
 A.   State v. Stark – Intentionally infecting with HIV. Should DF’s convictions be dismissed because the State failed to prove an intent to expose/inflict bodily harm?
 a)    Any reasonably intelligent person would know from the statute that “expose” refers to engaging in conduct that can cause another to become infected with the virus. He was not forced to guess at what conduct was criminal. Conviction affirmed.
 b)    DF argument: he didn’t INTEND to harm the women he slept with. 
 1.    PL says the person who makes the contact doesn’t necessarily have to know the harm that he inflicts. 
 2.    DF says he intended to have sex but he didn’t intend the extent of the harm.
·          Also that the statute was too vague.
·          Also he has a right to privacy.
 B.   Johnson v. State – District court of FL asks Supreme Court of FL to decide whether ingestion of controlled substance by a mother is in violation of FL law after affirming convictions of trial court. Can’t just stretch the law to encompass a crime not covered by the statute because have to notify the people that its actually is a crime. Court declines decision below, answers certified question in the negative, and remand with direction that PL’s two convictions be reversed.
 i.      Can’t just stretch the law to encompass a crime not covered by the statute because have to notify the people that its actually is a crime. You can’t just retroactively say “You shouldn’t have done that & now we’re telling you.”
 ii.     The state considered a child abuse law covering this but didn’t pass it.
 iii.   HYPO: someone over 18 delivers drugs from kingpin’s house to a minor in a parking lot = falls under statute.
 iv.   HYPO: Kingpin fedexs drugs to minor = under statute.
 v.    HYPO: Kingpin leaves drugs under a rock for minor to pick up = under statute.
 C.   People v. James/ People v. McCray – Should a increased culpability for the patron/John be carried over to the prostitute? Should first time offenders be treated as harshly as repeat?
 i.      First offenders were traditionally offered adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in hope of deterring her from future acts. Ultimate protection of society is best achieved through rehabilitation. Proceedings dismissed.
 ii.     Paternalisitic law.
 D.   United States v. Carpenter – Defendants sought review of their convictions for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, mail fraud, and wire fraud.
 i.      Merely using info not available to others does not violate the law. Distinction between information and conduct. Use of info which violates c

 B.   Due Process model of constitutional constraints – emphasis on constitutional presumption of innocence. Until convicted, defendants are entitled to same dignity and respect as other citizens.
 C.   Crime control Model of constitutional constraints – concerned with preservation of public order; efficient enforcement of criminal law.
 D.   Due Process
 i.      Standard of Proof – “proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged.”
 a)    Given the facts of the case, it is difficult to come up with another reasonable explanation of what happened (can you go to sleep at night with your decision)
 b)    In civil litigation, only proof by “preponderance of evidence.”
 c)    Purpose of reasonable doubt is to restrain the power of the state.
 d)    Large social disutility of convicting an innocent man.
 e)    Reasonable doubt = leaves jury in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge.
Inherenly qualitative. You can’t put a probability on it (McCullough)