Select Page

Criminal Law
University of Minnesota Law School
Stras, David R.

Crim Law Outline
Thursday, April 17, 2008
2:12 PM
 
1.     Introduction
 
A.   Analysis of Criminal Liability — purpose of schemes of analysis:
1.     Scope of legality – can’t punish w/o pre-established definition of crime. What aspects of criminal liability must be legislatively defined and what can be left to judicial resolution?
2.     Burdens of proof – presumption of innocence (though nowhere in Constitution) assumed to be requirement of due process. Scheme identifies who bears burden of proof on various issues.
a.      Constitutional Q of how heavy a burden courts/leg can place on D
b.     Legislative Q of how heavy a burden legislature should place on D
c.      Interpretive Q of what allocation of burden judges should assume when legislature silent
d.     Common law Q of how (w/in Constitutional limits) to allocate the burden when judges recognize defenses not provided by statute
3.     Statutory interpretation – filling in gaps in statutes defining offenses
B.   Questions for all cases: 
1.     What are the relevant facts for determining criminal responsibility?
2.     What is the applicable law on the date of the incident?
3.     Would the Model Penal Code treat the incident any differently?
4.     What crime(s) did D(s) commit?
5.     Should D(s) be held criminally responsible on the facts given?
6.     What is the appropriate punishment for the crime?
 
C.   Sources of Criminal Law
 
[A] Common Law – judge-made law. Even when superseded by statutory law, common law may serve to interpret ambiguous statutory terms.
 
 
[B] Criminal Statutes – Today, statutory law is the prevailing source of criminal law and essentially has replaced common law. Although most states have abolished common law crimes, a few have enacted “reception” statutes, expressly recognizing common law offenses when statutory law does not provide a punishment for such offense. In effect, such a statute “receives” the common law offenses in place at the time of the statute’s enactment.
 
Generally speaking, statutory law classifies a crime as a felony or a misdemeanor, both of which may be subdivided into degrees. A felony is punishable by death or imprisonment in a state or federal prison. The maximum punishment for a misdemeanor is a monetary fine, incarceration in a local jail, or both. Some jurisdictions also have an additional classification of “violation” or “infraction” for which only a monetary fine is authorized.
 
[C] Model Penal Code – Although the Code is not the law in any jurisdiction, it stimulated adoption of revised penal codes in at least 37 states. Although some state legislatures have adopted only small portions of the Model Code as their own, other jurisdictions (including New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Oregon) have enacted many of its provisions. Courts, on their own, sometimes turn to the Model Code and its supporting commentaries for guidance in interpreting non-Code criminal statutes.
 
D. Constitutional Limitations on Criminal Law
Constitution imposes limits on federal and state legislative action. A state legislature is also limited by its own state constitution, which may place greater restrictions on it than does the federal Constitution.
 
[A] Limits on Federal Action – The “Bill of Rights” restricts the power of the federal government in its relationship to individuals.
 
[B] Limits on State Action – The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution imposes limits on stategovernment. The 14th Amendment:
a.      prohibits states from making or enforcing “any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
b.     “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law;” or
c.      “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
 
E.   MPC Scheme
MPC Scheme (p.15):
1.     Offense committed where actor satisfies all elements in definition of offense. Elements are objective (actus reus) and culpability (mens rea).
2.     Objective elements may include conduct of actor (or others), circumstances under which conduct occurs and the results stemming from the conduct.
3.     Offense must contain at least one objective element consisting of conduct of actor (act requirement)
4.     Culpability elements may be purpose (or intention), knowledge, recklessness, negligence or lack of culpability (strict liability) with regard to engaging in conduct, causing result or being aware of circumstances specif

nses, once the defendant has met his burden of production. Others allocate the burden of persuasion regarding defenses to D – typical to require the defendant to prove the validity of the claimed defense by the less strict preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
 
If a defendant presents sufficient evidence to meet his burden of production regarding a defense to the crime charged, the jury must be permitted to evaluate the defense claimed. When the defendant also has the burden of persuasion, a jury should reject the claimed defense if he fails to satisfy the stated burden.
 
5.     Originally (Blackstone), prosecution required to prove that D committed criminal act and D required to prove circumstances of justification, excuse and alleviation (included excuses of mistake or accident – which today would disprove mens rea element of offense – prosecution has burden of proof today)
6.     By late 1800’s, questions as to whether requiring D to prove such exculpatory claims was consistent with principle of presumption of innocence.
o    Davis v. U.S. (1895) – put burden on prosecution to disprove claims of insanity in federal cases. (not constitutional ruling, common law ruling)
o    Leland v. Oregon (1951) – SC rejected due process challenge to Oregon’s practice requiring Ds to prove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. But, court said that jury may acquit D of murder if evidence of insanity raised a reasonable doubt that D had acted with requisite mental element. Thus, burden of proof of guilt squarely on state (since state must prove mens rea for murder).
In re Winship (1970) – SC made clear that presumption of innocence was constitutional principle binding on states. DPC protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to