Criminal Law
Fall 2014
Professor: Mark Lee
Text: Bonnie, Coughlin, Jeffries, and Low’s CRIMINAL LAW (2nd ed.)
[Case] Keeler v. Superior Court of Amador County, p134
[Fact] Keeler was charged with the murder of the fetus that he “stomped” out of his ex-wife.
[Rule] A fetus must be viable and actually in the process of being born to qualify as a human being for homicide purposes.
[Notes]
· “Human being” was interpreted narrowly due to the existence of the abortion statute, which showed legislation’s intent to treat human being and fetus differently.
[Case] People v. Sobiek, p144
[Fact] Sobiek contended that the mis-appropriation of funds from his partnership could not constitute theft.
[Rule] Misappropriation of partnership funds may constitute theft.
[Case] Rex v. Manley, p80
[Fact] Manley was charged with making false allegations about a robbery.
[Rule] An act that prejudices the community (tending to public mischief) is indictable under the common law of crimes.
[Notes]
· Why not allow judicial crime creation (why only legislature can define crimes)?
· The casebook authors tell you that an American court would have freed Elizabeth Manley. Can you think of at least one good reason for doing that? As you formulate these reasons, please keep in mind that in cases involving torts, contracts, and property, courts routinely declare what the law is after cases arise.
· Principle of legality prevents prosecutors from lobbying/influencing judges and protects freedom from externally imposed constraints.
· Why need criminal law in addition to other laws? To achieve optimal deterrence. Remedies in other laws are not enough to achieve optimal deterrence.
· On the other hand, criminal sanctions create over-deterrence. Need to limit criminal sanctions arises. This is the function served by the principle of legality and not allowing judicial crime creation.
· Void for vagueness doctrine.
[Case] McBoyle v. U.S., p152
[Fact] The defendant knowingly transported a stolen airplane from Illinois to Oklahoma, and he was convicted of violating the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act.
[Rule] An airplane is not a “vehicle” within the meaning of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act.
[Notes]
· How about a boat? It can be argued in both ways, which is what is important.
[Case] Billingslea v. State, p113
[Fact] Billingslea was convicted of injuring an elderly individual, but the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered defendant’s acquittal because of a defective indictment and insufficient evidence. The State appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
[Rule] Criminal liability may not be imposed for omissions against elderly individuals if the indictment does not allege a statutory duty to act.
[Case] Martin v. State, p72
[Fact] Martin, after being arrested at his home, was taken by officers on to the highway, where he manifested a drunken condition.
[Rule] Criminal liability must be based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or omission from committing an act which it was physically possible to have performed.
[Case] People v. Decina, p78
[Fact] Decina (D), knowing he was an epileptic, killed four people in an auto crash resulting from a seizure.
[Rule] Criminal liability may be based upon an otherwise involuntary act if the actor had prior knowledge that the involuntary act might occur in a manner resulting in harm.
[Case] Robinson v. California, p79
[Fact] Robinson (D) was convicted of being a narcotics addict.
[Rule] States may not outlaw the condition of narcotics addiction.
[Notes]
· Why is possession of narcotics a crime but being a narcotics addict isn’t?
· The day after Thanksgiving, your client, a New York heroin addict, exited his third floor apartment, walked down the stairs to the entryway, and opened the door to exit the building. As he about to step outside, a police officer who knew that he was an addict, arrested him for violating the following statute:
A person who uses, resorts to, or loiters about any stairway, staircase, hall, roof, elevator, cellar, courtyard or any passageway of a building for the purpose of unlawfully using or possessing any narcotic drug, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Do you have an argument to support a motion to dismiss the charge? [Hint: under this statute, what may a narcotics addict in New York City do without risking arrest for a misdemeanor?].
Issue: Should this law be enforced? Even though this law is prohibiting specific acts, these acts seem normal activities that people engage in everyday. Under this statute, it looks like there is nothing a narcotics addict can do without risking arrest besides just staying home. This is virtually same as criminalizing people for merely being an addict, which is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Now argue why this law should be enforced.
[Case] Powell v. Texas, p79
[Fact] Powell (D), a chronic alcoholic, was found drunk in a public place and fined $20.
[Rule] Punishing a chronic alcoholic for public intoxication does
fact that must be submitted to the jury.
[Notes]
· There will be one question on the exam about culpability (mens rea).
· Issue: What culpability, if any, should the prosecution have to show about D’s taking of the bomb casings?
· Culpability is always related to some element or circumstance of the offense being charged.
· D’s argument
o Common law always requires mens rea.
o Principle of legality – Judicial interpretation of ambiguous statutes should be biased in favor of the accused (lenity doctrine).
o Same penalty for all 4 crimes (embezzle, steal, purloin, convert), which are grouped together -> legislature intended to apply same level of culpability.
o Harm of adopting interpretation of P:
§ Prosecute innocent people.
§ Over deterrence (people will avoid everyday conduct to avoid punishment.)
o Benefit of adopting interpretation of D:
§ Only prosecute vicious conduct.
· P’s argument
o Plain reading of the statute does not require mens rea.
o No express requirement of intent in the statute, so no legislative intent.
o Emphasizes “converts”, which comes from a tort that does not require mens rea.
o Congress was concerned with common law gaps between offenses -> defenses based on prosecutor charging D with wrong offense -> eliminate technical distinctions -> statute enacted to fill gaps between various theft offenses that turned on how property was acquired.
o Harm of adopting interpretation of D:
§ People will use the defense that they thought the property was abandoned in every case.
§ Fail to achieve optimal deterrence.
o Benefit of adopting interpretation of P:
§ Prevent people from taking property they do not own without confirming their abandonment with property owner.
· Clues on how to make arguments for both sides:
o Always look at the words of statute first.
o Consider context (common law antecedents).
o Consider likely consequences of alternative ways of interpreting the statute.
o Consider legislative history.
