Criminal Law – Spring 2014 – Prof. Song Richardson
Outline
1) Theories of Punishment
a) Utilitarian (Consequentialist): Focused on the outcome of punishment
i) Examples
(1) Rehabilitation
(2) Deterrence
(3) Incapacitation
ii) Could justify sentencing an innocent person
b) Retribution: Concerned with leveling the “moral scales” (punishing culpability)
2) Stages of a Criminal Case
a) Crime discovered
b) Arrest
c) Initial Appearance
d) Bond review – Will they allow bail? (note: sometimes people will agree to plead guilty just to get out of custody)
e) Options for beginning the criminal procedings
i) Preliminary hearings
ii) grand jury
iii) trail information
f) Arraignment – Defendant pleas guilty/nonguilty
g) Pretrial hearings/motions hearings
h) Final pretrial conference
i) Trial
j) General Note: There is discretion at most of these steps
3) Standard of Proof
a) “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is required (this is the toughest standard we have)
4) Sources of Criminal Law
a) Model Penal Code
b) Common Law – crimes are created by statute
i) Judges interpret it
Interpreting Statutes
1) Statutory Interpretation
a) Goals of statutory construction
i) Respect the plain language of the statutory text
ii) Discerning and effectuating the intent of the legislator/voters for a referendum
iii) Ensuring the ruling doesn’t violate the interpretation of another case
b) Rules of Statutory Interpretation
i) Plain Meaning
(1) Look at the actual text created by congress
(2) Common sense meanings
(3) Dictionary meanings
ii) 4 Cannons of Construction
(1) Lists and other associated terms
(2) Statutory Structure
(3) Statutory Amendment
(a) Amendments taking place after the crime are not included/considered
(4) Avoiding Absurdity
iii) Legislative History
iv) If all else fails, apply the rule of lenity
(1) Rule of Lenity: All doubts when reading a criminal statute should be resolved in favor of the defendant. Reasons
(a) Liberty is at stake
(b) People must have notice of what is actually criminal
2) Elements of a crime
a) Actus Reus: voluntary act that results in the social harm
i) Social Harm: The harm the state is attempting to punish through the statute. The “social” portion is included because it involves punishing the person on behalf of society
ii) This includes
(1) The voluntary act (or omission)
(2) The social harm
iii) Inaction is only punished when the person is required to act
iv) This includes causation (because it links the act with the social harm)
b) Mens Rea: Guilty mind (the state of mind required
c) Causation (part of the actus reus): The act causes the harm
d) Concurrence (actus reus and mens reus occur at the same time)
3) Actus Reus
a) Voluntary Act
i) Whether an act is “voluntary” or “involuntary” could depend on the timeframe used by the different parties
ii) Voluntary act (Defined by the MPC §2.01): volitional act: a movement of the body willed by the actor. A “decision” or “willed” by the actor. As opposed to involuntary movement due to a sudden illness)
(1) Habitual Acts are considered volitional, even if the actor in unaware s/he is doing it (e.g. someone merging at a certain highway out of habit)
b) When Omission to act fulfills Actus Reus
i) Person has a legal duty to act
(1) Special relationship
(2) Contract
(3) Statutory duty
(4) Creating the risk
(5) Voluntary assumption of care
ii) Person is physically capable of acting
iii) Failure to act causes the social harm
iv) Person has the adequate mens rea
c) Good Samaritan Laws
i) Most states do not require citizens to assist someone they have no relationship with
ii) **Two types of Good Samaritan Laws
(1) Laws which require individuals to act
(2) Laws which protect individuals who act as good Samaritans
d) Social Harm
i) Result Crime: The result of the crime is the harm
ii) Conduct Crime: The conduct is the harm
iii) Attendant Circumstances: Those things that must be present for when the actor performs the prohibited conduct and/or causes the prohibited result
4) Interpreting Statutes under Common Law v. MPC/Construction
a) Under Common Law
i) If the mens rea term is first, it modifies all subsequent actus reus terms
(1) Exceptions
(a) Doesn’t modify subsequent attendant circumstances
(b) Doesn’t modify phrases set off by punctuation marks (e.g. parentheses)
ii) Judges must interpret the terms (e.g. “malice” could mean either (1) “wicked,” (2) “intent,” or (3) “reckless”
b) Model Penal Code
i) The mens rea applies to all material elements (Material Elements is defined in §1.13(10))
ii) §2.02 lays out the different mens rea: Purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently
5) Mens Rea
a) Intent
i) Common law definition of intent: (1) Conscious act or purpose to cause a certain result or engage in certain prohibited conduct, or (2) know (with a virtual certainty), that an act will cause a certain social harm
(1) Intent can be either (1) specific, or (2) general
(2) Same as the MPC terms of “purposely” or “knowledge” (common law definition encompasses both of these things)
ii) How can we show/determine intent?
(1) Intent is difficult to determine because
(a) It is a mental phenomenon
(b) It cannot be proved through direct testimony (because the only evidence is inside someone’s head)
(2) A jury may presume intent where
(a) Natural and Probably Consequences Doctrine: We can presume the actor intended the “natural and probable cause of the act” to take place (does this require evidence from the surrounding circumstances? I think yes, that the jury must focus on a particular act)
(i) One problem with this is that it decreases the burden on the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had intent (it allows the jury to presume intent when defendant shows less than a certainty that there is intent).
(ii) Also, it may allow the prosecutor to extend the temporal chain of the “natural and pro
general intent crime, it must be a reasonable mistake
b) Mistakes of fact
i) If a mistake of fact concerns general intent portion of the crime, then a mistake can only be used if it is both (1) honest/good faith, and (2) reasonable
ii) If the mistake of fact concerns specific intent portion of the crime, then a mistake can be used as long as it is honest/good faith (reasonableness is not required) (if it doesn’t apply to the specific intent portion, then it should be analyzed as a general intent crime)
iii) Mistake of fact can never be a defense for a strict liability crime
c) Common Law Mistake of Law
i) The presumption is that “ignorance is no excuse” for failing to follow the law. However, there are three exceptions to this
(1) Reasonably relying on an official, and turning out to be mistaken (entrapment by estoppel)
(2) If knowledge that the act is against the law is a requirement, then lacking knowledge would negate the required mens rea
(3) Lacking fair notice of a legal duty can violate due process
ii) Policy reasons for the “ignorance is no excuse” rule
(1) Discourages fraud (lying that you didn’t know the law)
(2) Encourages knowledge of the law
iii) There are exceptions to a mistaken interpretation of the law
(1) Belief founded on an official statement of the law contained in the statute itself
(2) If knowledge that the prohibited conduct is unlawful, is an element of the crime
(3) Prosecution of a person who lacks fair notice of a legal duty imposed by the law can violate due process
iv) People v. Marrero
(1) Marrero thought that he had a right to carry the pistol based on
(a) The reading of a statute
(b) He sought out clarification from superior officers
(c) Note: no court had previously ruled on this issue at all
(2) Holding
(a) For a court to find that a misreading of a statute serve as an exception, then it must have either
(i) Been based on a correct reading of a statute (which actually permitted the conduct in question), and only later was found to be permitted (NOTE: This last part, requiring that it later be determined to be “invalid or erroneous” was read into the statute by the majority, and was an improper interpretation), or
(ii) A statement made by an official who can make official statements on the law
(b) Dissent – The interpretation of the NY Statute was incorrect, because it ignores legislative history
(i) It also claims that this interpretation provides almost no protection in the case of mistakes of law
