Criminal Law Outline

CRIMINAL LAW JAIN FALL 2015

Process for Determining Guilt

Proof beyond a Reasonable Doubt (In Re Winship):

Winship doctrine: Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged

MPC: same, not specify the strength of affirmative defense evidence. 1.12

Sentencing Factors:Leg. can specify characteristics, judge can determine the sentencing by a preponderance of evidence.(McMillian, Apprendi)

Policy: Constitution. Social Utility-Convict innocent person v. Free guilt person. 1. A society with freedom and indignity; 2. The standard protect the society, confidence and respect.

Allocating the Burden of Proof:

Normally, P bears both burdens (Patterson v. New York):

Burden of production: enough evidence to put a certain fact in issue.

Burden of persuasion: allocation the burden of convincing the trier of fact.

The burden of proving heat of passion on sudden provocation, as well as other affirmative defenses (all circumstances of justification, excuse or alleviation) – rests on D. Maybe burden of persuasion, P disproving w/o reasonable doubt.

Presumption (County v. Allen):

It is sometimes permissible to presume the existence of an essential fact (like intent) from proof of some other fact.

Mandatory presumption: one that the jury is required to accept in the absence of defense rebuttal. It is acceptable only if, over the universe of all cases in general, the presumed relationship holds true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rule of Lenity

Common law, when conflicting reasonable interpretations, the statute should be interpreted in favor of D.

MPC does not recognize the lenity principle, the statute should be construed according to their “fair import” & furthers purposes of MPC and the statues.

The Justification of Punishment

Utilitarian (forward looking): Punishment serves certain functions.

Deterrence

Specific Deterrence for the criminal, general deterrence for others

incapacitation of the offender

rehabilitation of the offender.

Retribution (backward looking):

Offenders deserve punishment.

Retaliation and vengeance

victim vindication (安抚受害人)

social cohesion (社会凝聚力)

denunciation (谴责).

Mixed Theories

Distribution and degree: impose different punishment to different individuals.

MPC. 1.02, 7.01, 7.03

Regina v. Dudley and Stephens:Killing an innocent life to save one’s own does not justify murder even if it under extreme circumstance. Excuse: to certain limited classes of defendants whose actions are harmful and unjustified, when we believe they couldn’t reasonably be expected to have done better. (e.g., child and insane ppl)

Elements of an offense: 1. Actus Reus (Conduct) & Attendant Circumstances 2. Mens Rea (State if mind) 3. A result of Conduct 4. Causation

Actus Reus Requirement: Acts or Omissions

A. Culpability

1. Voluntary

1) Common Law

Martin v. State External Involuntary act not guilty, 酒醉被带到高速公路

Statute requires a voluntary appearance. However, D is involuntarily and forcibly carried to the place. So the statute does not apply. No voluntary act.

Jones v. City of Los Angeles The state may not punish a person for who he is, independent of anything he has done.

2) MPC

Section 2.01: The conduct must “include” a voluntary act. As long as one part of the conduct is voluntary, the “voluntary” requirement is satisfied. The result of the drunken case will be different.

3) Policy

1. Civilized society does not punish thoughts alone. 2. Cannot hope to deter involuntary movement or to stimulate action 3. The sense of security. 4. Interpretative Construction in the Substantive Criminal Law.

2. Unconsciousness

1) Common law:

Where not self-induced, as by voluntary intoxication or the equivalent, unconsciousness is a complete defense. unconsciousness need not reach the physical dimensions commonly associated with the term; it can exist where the subject physically acts in fact but is not, at the time, conscious of acting.(People v. Newton)

Doctor Testimony, shot in the stomach can cause partial unconsciousness temporarily. (无意识时枪击警察)

As long as there is one voluntary act in the course of conduct, then D is responsible.

Bratty An act is not to be regarded as involuntary simply because the doer does not remember it, nor is an act simply because doer cannot control it.

2) MPC: (similar as common law), not a defense but no crime at all, so burden on P

2.01 (2) The following are not voluntary acts within the meaning of this Section:

(a) a reflex or convulsion;

(b) a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep;

(c) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion;

(d) a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.

Somnambulism: not considered as voluntary act under Cogdon and MPC.

Habit: Habitual action done without thought is considered as voluntary. But MPC is exception: 2.01(2)(d).

Epilepsy (People v. Decina): A person’s movements during an epileptic seizure are indisputably involuntary. But if his awareness of a condition which he knows may produce a consequence, and his disregard of the consequences, renders him liable for culpable negligence.

B. Omission

Four situations of omission: 1. A statute(Tort or other laws) imposes a duty to care for another; 2. A certain status relationship; 3. Has assumed a contractual duty to care for another; 4. One has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent other from rendering help. (Jones v. US)

Policy: 1. notice to individuals; 2. From a utilitarian perspective, the callousness of the omission rule may breed contempt for society’s system of criminal justice. In contrast, a rule that requires people to assist others in peril might promote social cohesion; some wrongdoers might desist from planned criminal activity if they knew that others were likely to intervene.

Policy Defense: 1: If people were as legally responsible for omissions as commissions, criminal prosecutions would burgeon. 2: problem is that of line-drawing. 3: liability for omissions would create serious problems of proof of mens rea. 4: Philosophically, how does one prove causation in omission cases – how can nothing be the cause of something; 5: interveners often cause injury to themselves or others by their intervention. 6: Causing harm & allowing it to occur are not morally symmetrical. 7: The omission doctrine is consistent with the principle of autonomy. In a society which values individual freedom & limited governmental power the criminal justice system should be used discriminately. It is the role of other moral institutions to perfect human character; the purpose of the criminal law is limited to deterring or punishing persons for causing h