Criminal Law Outline
I. The Process of Proof
a. Introduction
i. How to define criminal conduct
ii. Intent or Result?
iii. Appeals are rare cases
iv. No right or wrong, but know the law
v. State courts have become more liberal in light of conservative federal courts
b. Presentation of Evidence
i. Conflict of Fact: jury determines what historically happened; authority of interpretation
ii. Judicial Instruction: judge applies instructions to frame jury instructions
iii. Affirmative Defense: burden of proof remains on D after P presents prima facie test;
iv. Presumptions
1. Mandatory Presumption – if evidence is true, must assume
2. Rebuttable Presumption – interpretation based on evidence; jury can choose whether fact applies; gives jury more ability to interpret
v. Evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice – FRE 403
vi. Evidence of other crimes are not admissible if the aim is unfair prejudice or confusing issues – FRE 404(b)
vii. Human nature is to make judgments based no past acts, but it would negate values of human autonomy if juries were allowed to consider past
viii. Harmless Error – does not affect outcome of case
ix. Prejudicial Error – can affect outcome of case
x. People v. Zackowitz (1930)
1. Victim catcalls D wife; D leaves scene mad and drunk; D returns to scene with gun and shoots and kills victim as victim runs at D with wrench; P presents pistols and teargas gun from D home that were not related to the crime to show criminal disposition and support a 1st degree murder charge or voluntary manslaughter; EVIDENCE
a. COURT: Character is never a relevant question in court unless D makes it an issue; mislead jury to make character judgment rather than judgment on act itself
xi. Commonwealth v. Haight (1987)
1. D charged with burglary, criminal mischief; P provided evidence of income, implying that poor people would tend to steal and rob
a. Evidence not harmless and can affect J perception of D; when there is a reasonable possibility that an error may have contributed to a conviction, then error is not harmless;
b. CON: only appropriate if it was to show sudden wealth
c. Burden of Proof
i. Beyond a reasonable doubt for all criminal actions
ii. In Re Winship (1970)
1. Minor convicted of larceny in juvenile court on preponderance of evidence;
a. COURT: cannot be convicted of criminal offense on preponderance – only beyond a reasonable doubt; reasonable doubt is only way to ensure that conviction is not on factual error
II. Punishment
a. Introduction
i. Sentencing Guidelines
1. severity of crime v. background of D
2. Regularization of Sentencing: Mandatory minimum
ii. Regina v. Dudley and Stevens (1884)
1. Four people were adrift on boat; one was younger / weaker; when two D (1 obtains) thought that they were not to be saved, they chose to eat him
a. COURT: Punishable; do not want to endorse a survival of the fittest approach to valuing life, even in emergencies
b. NOTE: also related to necessity defense, see page: ?;
b. Theories of Punishment
i. G
oportionality
d. What Should be Punished
i. Inappropriate when:
1. Protected Conduct: the conduct prohibited should in principle be left free in a liberal society
a. Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
i. D was caught with another man performing sodomy; Charged with deviate sexual act; D appeals because he was practicing a private act with another consenting adult protected by the 14th Amendment;
ii. COURT: US and European law has been evolving to respect private acts of adults; no legitimate state interest in banning act; undermines law by banning something that is practiced by many; arbitrarily enforced and promotes blackmail; does not harm other
b. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1989)
i. Family of woman in coma wants woman to stop being fed, essentially killing her, because she had said she wanted such; question of 14th amendment right to due process—what does she want?
1. COURT: Balance state and individual interest; 14th Amendment would allow a conscious person to refuse support; Liberty Interest: adult has right to do what they wish with body; MO law requires clear and convincing evidence of an individual’s wish—not enough evidence
2. Adverse Consequences: the use of punishment to govern a particular conduct produces more harm than good
