Criminal Law Fall – 2011 – Etienne
Legal Guilt
a. Proof of Guilt at Trial
1. Presumption of Innocence
Every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
2. Reasonable Doubt (Proof of Guilt at Trial)
“Beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged” – Due Process Clauses of 5th & 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
2 burdens in place:
1. Burden of production – Defendant/Government has the obligation to first introduce evidence on a given issue. Has the burden of production regarding elements of a crime (every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged), defendant must produce evidence regarding affirmative defenses
2. Burden of persuasion – Government must prove every element of crime beyond reasonable doubt, but burden for Defenses may be put on either party by legislature (also determines level of burden), Gov’t must prove beyond reasonable doubt any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum
Inference: fact finder may infer a fact not proven. (Burden of production only requires some evidence to be proven, rest may be inferred)
Owens v State
– Police responded to a call and found a man drunk in his truck on a driveway
– Issue: can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone?
– Yes, only if circumstances are inconsistent with reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Prosecution must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (rule out possibilities of innocence completely)
3. Clear and Convincing Evidence
Substantially more likely than not
4. Preponderance of Evidence
More likely than not. Greater or equal to 50% mostly used in civil cases
b. Jury Nullification
Jury nullification is when the jury decides that the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, but for reasons of conscience it disregards the facts and/or law and acquits the defendant
Jury has the power to nullify, but not the right to do so. Jurors take an oath to obey the judge’s instructions on the law; therefore jury nullification constitutes a violation of the juror’s oath. A defendant is not entitled to have the jury instructed that it may nullify the law if it choses to do so.
5th amendment: Double Jeopardy provides that a defendant maybe not be tried again after an acquittal
State v Ragland
– D prosecuted for robbery and possession of a weapon by convicted felon, challenges “must” in instruction to jury
– Issue: is it an error to not make jury’s nullification powers explicit in instructions?
– Decision: No. Jury does not need to be made aware of powers to nullify.
c. MPC 1.02 – MPC Purposes, Principles of Construction
1 – Purposes of defining offenses
2 – Purpose of sentencing provisions
3 – Code interpretation to fair import of terms, to further general purposes of Code
Definitions of Criminal Conduct
a. Sources
1. U.S. Constitution
-4th Amendment – unreasonable search and seizure
-5th Amendment – Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Due Process, Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination
-6th Amendment – D’s right to speedy/public trial by impartial jury, right to confront witnesses against you
– Supreme Court limits right to trial by jury despite “in all criminal prosecutions”
– 8th Amendment – Cruel and unusual punishment
-13th Amendment – No involuntary servitude except punishment
-14th Amendment – Applied Bill of Rights to States
– Provides limits for legislature when drafting criminal statutes (also governed by relevant state constitution).
2. Statutes (State & Federal)
Criminal laws often codified in “Penal Code” – legislatively drafted crime definitions, crime defenses, and relevant doctrines
Legislature forms law in 3 ways:
– from common law
– in response to events
– in piecemeal fashion
3. Common Law
– Criminal law originally understood to come from basic moral principles.
– British used common law in criminal system, America adopted British c common law.
– Still relevant – addresses gaps in legislation, clarifies statutes
4. MPC
The MPC is a model code. It is not binding authority, though many states have adopted sections of their penal codes from the MPC.
Article 1 – General Provisions
Article 3 & 4 – Justifications, Defenses to Crimes
Part 2 – Defines crimes
Theories of Punishment
a. Utilitarian
– Holds that the general object of all laws is to augment the total happiness of the community by excluding
– Pain of the punishment is undesirable unless its infliction is likely to prevent a greater amount of pain in the form of a future crime
– Punishment is inflicted in order to prevent future crime
– General deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation
b. Retribution
– Punishment of a wrongdoer is justified as a deserved response to wrongdoing
– Punish because of the wrongdoing regardless if it will deter from future crime
– Brings wrongdoer back to moral equilibrium
Legality and Vagueness
3 doctrines govern court/legislature relationship:
1. Principle of legality (nulla poena sine lege) forbids judicial crime creation.
2. Void for vagueness disallows entire legislative delegation of lawmaking authority to courts.
3. Strict construction requires judicial resolution of uncertainty be construed toward accused.
a. MPC 1.05
It is not an offense unless it is a crime or violation under this code or a state statute
Does not affect the power of a court to punish for contempt or to employ any sanction authorized by law for the enforcement of an order
b. Principle of Legality
Once a statute replaces common law it is not illegal unless its in the
d thing possessed OR knew of possession for long enough time to have given up object
b. Voluntary Act
– A person is not ordinarily guilty of a criminal offense unless his conduct includes a voluntary act.
Common Law definition of Voluntary Act
– Is a willed muscular contraction or bodily movement by the act
– Degree of movement required: slightest muscular contraction or bodily movement by the actor
– Willed- bodily movement was controlled by the mind of the actor
– Acts controlled by impulses such as seizures are involuntary
MPC definition of Voluntary Act
– Still requires the act to be voluntary
– Voluntarily never specifically defined
– Involuntarily include reflex or convulsion, bodily movement while unconscious or asleep, conduct during hypnosis
Constitution
– Supreme Court has never expressly held that punishment of an involuntary actor is unconstitutional. However, it has invalidated statutes that criminalize a status or condition rather than conduct
Rationale:
– Utilitarian – useless to punish involuntary actor, can’t be deterred.
– Retribution – person doesn’t deserve punishment unless chooses to put bad thoughts to action
Coerced Acts are still voluntary but one can still bring up affirmative defense
Martin v State
– Defendant was arrested at home and taken onto the highway where he showed signs of being drunk. He was then convicted of being drunk on public highway
– Issue: Does the accused have to go onto a public highway voluntarily to be convicted of being drunk on a public highway?
– Cannot be convicted of being drunk on a public highway if you were forcibly taken there
State v Utter
– Dad convicted of manslaughter on his son claimed “conditional response”-
– Issue: Can conditioned response be used as a defense on involuntary grounds
– Yes but the defense did not bring up enough evidence to support this defense
People v. Decina
– D subject to epileptic seizures, drove car and killed pedestrians during seizure
– Issue: can D be guilty of committing actus reus when having seizure?
– Decision: yes. Actus reus of crime was driving vehicle so as to cause death of human being. Actus reus included voluntary acts of getting in car and driving.
