Criminal Law Outline

CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE
I.       Criminal Law Generally, and Chpt. 1: Proof of Guilt at Trial
                                                               i.      Rules of law that, if violated, subject the actor to punishment
                                                              ii.      The course is about substantive law not process
Every crime =Act(omission) + social harm spec. in Statute + spec. Mental State + causation(prox.+actual)
b.        All Criminal prohibitions Must Be Statutory—per constitutional req., most are state laws
                                                               i.      Const. limits statutes states may enforce—i.e. no ‘cruel and unusual punishment’
                                                              ii.      Resources for interpreting criminal statutes:
1.        Common law precedents—many statutory crimes derive from CL origin
2.        Policy—general purposes of given statue
3.        MPC and commentary—particularly influential in some spots
c.        Essence of crime=moral condemnation by society? As opposed to civil wrongs
d.        Proof of Guilt at trial: 2 separate burdens both born by prosecution for PFC
                                                               i.      Burden of production—produce evidence to support charge
                                                              ii.      Burden of persuasion—convince jury/judge BRD
e.        Presumption of innocence—why? –protect individuals from state power, ‘better to let guilty go free than innocent punished’ etc.
f.         Beyond Reasonable Doubt std.—every element of crime must be proven, (In re Winship)
                                                               i.      No universal definition from SCOTUS , many different jury instructions used for it—“moral certainty”, “firmly convinced”, “no hesitation”
                                                              ii.      Jury nullification—jury has the power (but not the right) to moot law by finding for or against defendants based on sentiment, bias, caprice, etc. by giving no explanation for its verdict—mitigated by judge control, instructions etc
g.        Some Crimes= “Malum in se”—bad in themselves; morally wrong—murder
h.        Some Crime= “Malum prohitum”—bad because they’re illegal—underage drinking
Owens v. State: wasted D in truck in driveway with it running but no evidence whose house it is. Court says BRD is satisfied by     inference and likelihood he just drove there rather than about to drive. On Appeal, issue is whether “a rational trier of               fact could’ve reasonably reached result”—very rare for app. Ct. to overturn convictions
II.    Chpt 2: Principles of Punishment
a.        Criminal law to be successful ppl. must 1)know the law 2) understand the words 3) Be able to comply and 4) be willing to comply
b.        2 OPPOSING THEORIES:
                                                               i.      Utilitarianism: (a Consequentialist theory) good consequences are the only goal, maximize utility for society,
1.        Punishment justified only if prevents greater pain than it inflicts
2.        Forward looking only—punish in order to prevent, deter mischief
3.        4 forms:
a. Specific deterrence—punished person be deterred next time
b. General deterrence—example, threat to others
c. Incapacitation—can’t harm society from jail, etc
d. Rehabilitation—seek to rehabilitate offenders—less popular
4.        Also said to mitigate vigilantism,
5.        Arguments against: may punish undeservedly, may not punish deserved,
                                                              ii.      Retributivism:  punish b/c its deserved, justice requires it, based on morality
1.        Backward looking—doesn’t matter what results, Guilt is necessary and sufficient condition for punishment
2.        Argues that it treats individuals with respect, as responsible, free choosers, whereas Utilitarianism makes ppl. A means to an end
3.        Detractors argue its barbaric, vengeful, hypocritical to judge etc
                                                            iii.      ‘Mixed Theory’—utilitarian in the general, retributist in the specific
The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens: the “cannibal case”—4 stranded at sea, should the two starving be punished for eating weak kid?? Court found guilty but Ds were pardoned? Necessity Def?
People v. Du: idiot Korean shopkeeper woman freaks out thinking girl is shoplifting, fight ensues, shoots girl in back of head as walking out, convicted of vol. manslaughter. What should be sentence?
–          Objectives of sentencing: 1) protect society 2) punish D 3) encourage D to abide by laws 4) deter others 5) isolate D from more crime 6) secure restitution for victim 7) uniformity of sentencing.
 
c.        Proportionality of punishment
                                                               i.      8th amendment prevents “cruel and unusual” punishment (5/9 of SCOTUS?)
1.        Weems(1910)—“greatly disproportionate”=cruel and unusual
2.        Coker v. Georgia: may not execute heinous rapist, punishment is excessive if it 1)makes no measurable contribution to punishment goals OR 2) is grossly disproportionate to crime severity
Ewing v. California: D argues 25-life sentence for stealing $1200 golf clubs under Ca 3-strikes law is cruel/unusual. Court examines precedents Rummel, Solem, Harmelin, Divided court finds very narrow “Grossly Disproportionate” req. in 8th am. –O’Conner+2 (Kennedy, Rehnquist) are majority, joined by                 Scalia, Thomas find NO Proportionality req, vs. 4 liberals would say broad proportionality and reduce D’s sentence.  Scalia argues against opinion that court’s rationale claiming to like all penological schemes equally is BS and that obvious reason for 3-strikes—deterrent is inherently utilitarian and punishment              doesn’t ‘fit the crime’—and it is states’ right to do so absent any 8th am. req of proportionality.
Factors:   1) gravity of offense v. that of penalty, 2) compare other sentences in same jurisdiction for similar crimes 3)       sentences for same crime in other jurisdiction
III.Chpt. 3: Criminal Statutes
a.       The Principle of Legality: Null poena sine lege—no penalty w/out law—must be a statute
                                                               i.      4 sub principles
1.       Legislativity—const. prohibits common law crimes at fed. level, Legislature                               must define proscribed conduct
2.       Clarity—meaning must be plainly discernable; or risk Void-for-vagueness
3.       Prospectivity—no ex-post facto laws, bills of attainder (Art. 1)
4.       Lenity—if in doubt—tie goes to the D
Commonwealth v. Mochan: Stat. says crime to “injure public morals, outrage public decency”, also says any             common law crimes are crimes, D calls and harasses woman, D argues no common law making his act a          crime exists, Court finds tenuous analogy that acts “potentially” injured ‘public morality’ and makes crime    up—dissent says “unwarranted invasion of legislative field” by making up a crime–2 Problems with vague           statutes—Notice to public, prosecutorial power
Keeler v. Superior Court: D ex husband stomps pregnant wife intentionally killing fetus, Is a fetus a “human being”                                per Ca. murder statute?? Majority says legislative intent from 1850 was to use common law def. at the time    penal code was passed when precedents said ‘human being only if born alive’. Outlines requirement of             prospectivity—“unforeseeable judicial enlargement applied retroactively operates precisely like ex post facto law, as Art I forbids” –
–          Dissent: plain modern meaning of fetus known to everyone in 1970—D knew he was murdering
–          Majority Rule: Can’t interpret statute to make a D guiltier than he would’ve been under old meaning b/c 1) Const. due process, 2) separation of powers—defer to legislatures to write law
*Note: SCOTUS has held that courts may enlarge interpretations retroactively as long as foreseeable
                                                              ii.      Rule of Lenity: mostly court-created idea, doesn’t appear in MPC §1.02—should              construe to meet ‘general purposes’—only mentioned where interpretation is      truly a ‘tie’
                                                            iii.      Statutory Clarity: Due process technically requires only “reasonable degree of     certainty” – Boyce(1952). Punishment is fair if D goes ‘perilously close’                to offense—as long as D couldn’t be surprised at application of the law
1.       Reasons for Fair Notice Req—1) vague law can trap innocent by not giving fair warning, 2) must prevent arbitrary, ad hoc enforcement by police, prosecutor etc—discretion, discrimination=bad, 3) uncertain meanings infringe upon freedoms—ppl have to steer clear widely to avoid infraction
 
In Re Banks (NC 1978):‘Peeping Tom’ statute prohibits “secretly peeping into a room occupied by female person”–                -D argues overly broad, vagueness could include completely harmless