Criminal Law Outline

Criminal Law_Spring 2010_Myer
Criminal Law
 
Introduction
·         Crime: act/omission + its state of mind, that if proven, incurs a formal and solemn pronouncement of the moral condemnation of the community
 
A.     Sources of Criminal Law
a.       Legislation
                                                               i.      Comprehensive Criminal Codes (most states): abolishing CL crimes and re-writing a comprehensive criminal codes (no CL crime, only criminal code crimes)
                                                             ii.      Reception Statutes (some states): all things that were crime in CL will remain crime unless a statute says otherwise
b.       Common Law
 
B.     The Criminal Process (The Box) – level of who can let a crime go
 
Punishment
o   Court of Appeal – almost always a dispute over a law, not over fact
o   Judge – sends the order
o   Jury – needs a proof (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt)
o   Judge – pretrial motions might require dismissal of charges or guilty pleas
o   Grand Jury (most states) – determine whether there is enough evidence for a trial (Probable Cause)
o   Prosecution – needs to provide ‘information’ that there is (Probable Cause)
o   Police – can choose to investigate and make arrest (Probable Cause)
o   Victim – can choose not to press charges or report to police
Crime is committed
 
C.      Issues of Evidence
a.       Admissible Evidence – does the evidence prove the necessary elements for the crime?
                                                               i.      Reputation or character testimony is admissible only when a defendant has put his own reputation in issue
1.       State v. Hernandez – drunk driving with drinking stickers – court held evidence of drinking slogans did not logically support or establish any of the elements of the manslaughter conviction
 
b.       Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – constitutional requirement  
                                                               i.      Due Process Clause – requires the prosecutor to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
1.       If the prosecutor fails to prove each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, the D must be acquitted of the offense charged
                                                             ii.      Presumption of innocence on appeal – standard on appeal is whether a rational trier of fact could reasonably have reached the result that it did
1.       On appeal, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury must necessarily have doubt as to guilt, the judge must require acquittal
2.       On appeal, if a reasonable mind might fairly have reasonable doubt or might fairly not have one, the case is for the jury
                                                           iii.      Circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction if the totality of such evidence negates any reasonable hypotheses of innocence 
1.       Owen v. State – suspect found behind wheel of car, asleep with empty beer cans. Convicted of drunk driving, appeals saying he was just as likely to have started his car in the driveway as opposed to driving to get to the driveway
 
c.       Jury Nullification – when the jury, believing that all of the elements of a crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, chooses to acquit the defendant on other principles
                                                               i.      Nullifications instructions are never given to a jury and D counsel usually cannot argue for it – State v. Ragland
                                                             ii.      Pros and Cons:
Pros
Cons
Avoid overly harsh sentences
Reflect community’s conscience
Checks the power of the system (to change) and the legislature (in defining the crime)
Fairness/predictability
Reduced deterrence
Encourage sob stories
Uniformity
 
                                                           iii.      Race-based jury nullification: some advocate self-help for racial minorities being charged – i.e. if stealing from department store then let them off, if stealing from neighbor then convict to teach community values
 
D.     Theories of Punishment – why we punish
a.       Utilitarian (forward looking): punishment is justified because of the useful purposes the punishment serves
                                       i.      Encourages offender to commit lesser offense
                                     ii.      Deterrence – goal is to prevent future harm/reduce crime
1.       General Deterrence: punishing A so B and C won’t commit the same offense
2.       Specific Deterrence: punishing A so A won’t commit crime again
                                   iii.      Incapacitation – keep them off the streets
                                   iv.      Rehabilitation/Reform – changing a behavior to conform to the societal norm (fix A so A won’t commit crime again)
 
b.       Retributivism (backward looking): punishment is justified because people deserve it. Punish the morally culpable
                                       i.      Eye for an eye – revenge, pay debt to society
                                     ii.      Looks at the individual
                                   iii.      Limiting principle – don’t punish for more than the wrong
 
c.       Denunciation (social stigma): public statement of condemnation for an action that was wrongly taken i.e. domestic violence – alternative to either retributivist or utilitarian 
 
E.      How much and what punishment should be imposed?
a.       Objectives of sentencing a defendant
                                                               i.      To protect society (incapacitation)
                                                             ii.      To punish the defendant for committing a crime (retributivism)
                                                           iii.      To encourage the defendant to lead a law-abiding life (specific deterrence)
                                                           iv.      To deter others (general deterrence)
                                                             v.      To isolate the defendant so she can’t commit other crimes (incapacitation)
                                                           vi.      To secure restitution for the victim (retributivism)
                                                         vii.      To seek uniformity in sentencing (general)
b.       Standard: permissible purposes, reasonably related
                                                               i.      Shaming – justified on the grounds of deterrence, rehabilitation, to protect the public – US v. Gementera (mail theft & sign)
 
F.      Proportionality of punishment – constitutional principles
a.       8th Amendment: excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted
                                                               i.      Death penalty alone in itself is not cruel and unusual punishment – but only if it is disproportionate to the crime for which it is imposed
1.       Coker v. Georgia – overturned death penalty conviction for rape (crime that doesn’t take a life can’t result in death)
                                                             ii.      Three strike rules – designed to increase prison terms of repeat felons – is not cruel and unusual punishment if it is not grossly disproportionate
1.       Ewing v. CA – E stole golf clubs convicted of three stri