Criminal Law Outline

Criminal Law

Etienne

Spring 2015

1/22/15

Owens v. State- Reasonable Doubt

· Convicted on circumstantial evidence- District answered whether or not he drove drunk

· Is the evidence consistent with a reasonable hypo of guilty

· Facts- suspicious vehicle, it is on engine running, lights on, two empties in the back, he is drunk, private driveway, 11pm

· Reasonable inferences- that he was passed out from drinking, drunk and drove on a public highway. It is reasonable that he was driving too

· If evidence is consistent with guilt is that inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence

· Reasonable doubt- small or large? Failure to quantify, it allows the practitioner to try to define if for jury. If you are a prosecutor- you want big doubt, reasonable doubt should be a pretty big doubt.

· The court looks at facts from standpoint of prosecution, if you believe given these inference, if you believe a rational trier of fact could have reached the same result, must reverse

Different Types of Reasonable doubt instructions

· Moral Certainty Instruction- an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge

· Firmly convinced instruction- Proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the def guilt, very few things we know with absolute certainty,

· No waver or Vacillation instruction- there is not an abiding conviction of guilt or if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers or vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the def not guilty because the doubt is reasonable

· No Real Doubt- real doubt based upon reason and common sense after a careful and impartial consideration of all of the evidence is the case, proof of such a convicing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs.

· Thoroughly Convinced- Are you thoroughly convinced

1/23/15

Jury Nullification

When the jury ignores the facts and the judge’s instructions on the law and acquits the defendant, this is not a right but a power, loophole created by 5th Amend. Double jeopardy not allowed

State v. Ragland

· R. is prosecuted for armed robbery and possession of a weapon, at end of trial Judge said-“you must” to jurors and def is claiming on appeal that this conflicts with jury’s nullification power

· Basically he argues they should say “If you believe, justice requires such a result”- he basically thinks it is his right to have jury nullification, jury free to acquit even if it is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of def guilt

· The jury has right to nullify but def is NOT entitled to having this right explained by the court

1/28/15

Utilitarian vs. Retributive

· Utilitarian: we want positive facts to out-weight the negative, you want to maximize the good and minimize the bad. We aren’t weighing general happiness.

o 1. Utility of offender vs. utility to society

o 2. Comparison- weighing harm vs punishment is it better to deter for society

o 3. Do we think about society as a whole? How far do we go looking at harm/benefit

o Goal to exclude mischief: 1. General deterrence, 2. Individual (specific) deterrence, 3. Incapacitation- keep criminals off streets, 4. Reform- wish to do crims decreases goal of becoming happier more useful person

· Utilitarians are forward looking, past crims is already, sunk- cost, but punishment is thought of as a harm so needs to be justified with good outweighing the bad

· Retribution- eye for an eye. Moral culpability warrants punishment

o Negative vs. positive: you can’t punish an innocent person (negative), someone commits offense & they (+) society deserves punishment this positive view

o Proportionality- don’t punish someone more than offense calls for

o Goals- more or less paying back the harms to society, trying to “rebalance” the scales

Queen v. Dudley and Stephens

· Seamen they are cast away, put on open boat, run out of food, 2 others on a boat, make plans to kills boy, eats him

· Dudley is actually killer, with a knife, assent from Stephens

· They are put to death, retributive

1/29/15

People v. Superior Court (Du)

· Du operates store, girls comes in, puts orange juice in backpack, approaches counter, Du assumes she is stealing, altercation, results in Du shooting her in back of head. She is convicted of voluntary manslaughter (also using a gun in a felony)

· Guns had been modified, unbeknownst to her

· Arguments- utilitarian- specific deterrence is not needed, general deterrence is also unlikely (circumstances are strange in this case)

Ewing v. California

· Facts- Ewing has a history of criminal conduct, while on probation- walks in and takes 3 golf clubs ($400 each) so higher issue

· Does the 8th Amend. Apply to these cases? What are the limitations

· Rummel- really small money charges, but since several convictions of felony theft, not cruel & unusual to give someone a life sentence for nonviolent offense- here they do say possibly of parole

· This would be cruel and unusual because no possibility of parole SO unconstitutional.

· 1. Gravity of offense/ harshness of penalty 2. Similar sentences impos