Criminal Law Spring 2013: Hughes
1. Criminal Law answers these questions
a. How do various jurisdictions define their criminal offenses?
b. What are the basic elements common to every crime
c. What does the prosecution have to prove to find a person guilty
d. What are the elements of murder, rape, theft,
e. Issues of morality (in cultural context)
i. Changes over time, conflicting beliefs, subcultures
2. Criminal as a process
a. Telling people what they must or must not do on communities behalf
i. Sanctions for disobedience
1. Moral condemnation from the community
3. Sources
a. No nationwide criminal code
b. Code typically follows common law- relying on decisions of judges
c. Or is a code which has incorporated MPC (model penal code) –relying on language of statutes
i. Product of ALI
4. Justifications for punishment
a. Consequentialist
i. Utilitarianism- effects of punishment on society
b. Non-consequentialist (actions is right or wrong in itself-malum in se)
i. Retribution
5. Theories of punishment (priority and relationship between) (People v Suitte)
a. General deterrence
b. Specific deterrence
c. Rehabilitation
d. Incapacitation
e. Retribution
6. Canons of Statutory Interpretation
a. Plain language
b. Intent of legislature
c. Rule of lenity- all doubts (ambiguity) when reading a criminal statute should be resolved in favor of the D
d. U.S. v Dauray
i. Sexual pictures- to contain, other matter
ii. Noscitur a sociis
1. Associated words or phrases
iii. Ejusdem generis
1. Where general words follow a specific enumeration of persons or things, the general words should be limited to persons or things similar to those specifically enumerated
7. Constitutional Limits on Power to punish
a. Void for vagueness doctrine- due process (5/14 A)
i. Kolender v Lawson
1. Requires people who loiter to provide “credible and reliable” identification and account for their presence
2. Unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement (walking while black article) by failing to provide sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute
ii. City of Chicago v Morales
1. Prohibits street gang members from loitering with others in a public place
a. Freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is protected by the due process clause
i. The definition of the word loiter in the ordinance has no common or accepted meaning
1. Vague- fails to distinguish between innocent loitering and conduct threatening harm
b. Invalidation for vagueness for two reasons
i. Fail to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits
ii. Authorize or even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement
b. Cruel and unusual punishment clause- 8th A
c. Equal protection clause – 14th A
8. Elements of a crime
a. Actus Reus Requirement
i. A voluntary act (or omission when there is a legal duty to act) that results in some kind of social harm
b. Mens Rea
i. A prohibited mental state (guilty mind)
c. Causation
i. Chain of causation which links D actions with the social harm
d. Concurrence between mens rea and actus reus
1. Actus Reus
1. Must be an act (not just thoughts)
a. Jailed on the precipice of crime
i. Journal filled with tale of child molestation for therapy reasons (Dalton case)
b. Inchoate crimes
i. Endeavor to criminalize conduct leading up to the completed social harm, so that police may apprehend a person before the social harm occurs
1. In reality the continuum of intertwined thought and action from the first fleeting idea related to a criminal act to the completed crime.
a. At what point can police step in? ig threats can be considered actions in of themselves
2. Act must not have been compelled or committed by the gov’t itself
a. Martin v State
i. Officers arrested a drunken person and took him to the hwy where he committed the proscribed acts- loud and profane language
1. Involuntarily and forcibly carried there by police
ii. Not a volitional act- mov’t of body willed by actor
1. Habitual acts included (even if not aware)
3. D act must have been voluntary
a. State v Decina
i. Man with epilepsy has a
between
1. General intent – D desired to commit the act
2. Specific intent – D in addition to the actus reas, must have desired to do something further (burglary, not only the break in but also the intent to commit a felony when inside)
c. MPC (if no mens rea element is specified then the default is recklessness)
i. Purposely
ii. Knowingly
iii. Recklessly
iv. Negligently
d. Statutory interpretation
i. Regina v Cunningham 1957
1. Malice- does not require ill will towards the person injured
a. Intention to do the particular harm OR
b. Recklessness as to whether the harm should occur or not
ii. Yermian
1. D Aware he made false statements, but was not aware that they would be transmitted to a federal agency
2. Whether congress intended the terms knowing and willfully in 1001 to modify the statutes jurisdictional language –which would require actual knowledge of federal agency jurisdiction
a. Issue of statutory interpretation
i. Purpose
ii. Natural reading
1. Knowing and willfully modify only the making of false statements
b. Proof of knowledge of federal agency is not required
iii. Holloway v US (disconcerting intent if unclear)
1. Carjacking with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm is a federal crime
a. Does this require D to have had an unconditional intent to kill or harm in all events, or whether it merely requires proof of an intent to kill or harm if necessary
b. Consider not only the bare meaning, but also its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme
c. Natural reading= deterrent
i. Better served by covering both
d. D may not negate a proscribed intent by requiring victim to comply with a condition the D has no right to impose
