Criminal Law
Wadie Said
Fall 2009
Criminal Law Outline
Criminal sanction à pronouncement of the community’s condemnation of a certain activity
Owens v. State à guy arrested for drunk driving, he was in the driveway passed out, open cans in car
– Purely circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction where hypothesis of innocence is unreasonable
Jury nullification à even though the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury refuses to convict of its own reasons
– State v. Ragland à guy appealed alleging instructions that if he had weapon during robbery they “must” convict of possession were improper
o The jury does not have to be informed of its nullification power
Theories of Punishment
– (1) Utilitarianism à the object of law is to increase total happiness of the community
o Punishment serves a useful purpose
o The pain of the punishment should not exceed the benefit it creates
o Forms of Utilitarianism
§ General Deterrence – punishment sends message to rest of society
§ Specific Deterrence – punishment deters future offenses of actor
§ Rehabilitation – prevent future crime by reforming offenders
– (2) Retribution à “just desserts” – the punished deserves a response to his wrongdoing, he is punished because of the wrongdoing
– (3) Mixed Theories
Proportionality – punishment should be proportional to the crime
– Utilitarian meaning – no more pain that necessary to fulfill law’s deterrent function
– Retributive meaning – punishment takes into account actor’s level of culpability
– 8th Amendment à ban on cruel and unusual punishment
Cases:
– Coker v. Georgia à guy sentenced to death after aggravated rape (while committing another felony) – sentence overturned as too harsh
o A penalty of death for aggravated rape is disproportional, death penalty should be reserved for cases of homicide
– Ewing v. California à guy sentenced to 25 years for stealing 3 golf clubs under 3 strike rule
o There is nothing “grossly disproportionate” in applying a the three strike rule, policy considerations for punishing career criminals is acceptable
o The Court has ruled there is only a “narrow proportionality principle” outside of death penalty cases
Legality à there can be no crime without law and no punishment without crime
– Ex Post Facto Clause – constitution prohibits enactment of laws that would made a crime out of conduct that was lawful at the time is was performed or increasing punishment for a crime committed before the law took effect
– Due Process Clause – courts prohibited from expanding the scope of the criminal statutes
o “void-for-vagueness”
– “Fair Notice” à statute must be sufficiently clear so that an ordinary person can understand its meaning
– Criminal statute should not be so broad that it could be discriminately employed by law enforcement officers
Cases:
– City of Chicago v. Morales à ordinance outlawed street gang members from “loitering” with others in public places, ruled unconstitutional
o (1) ordinance could fail to provide notice of what activity creates liability
o (2) could be discriminately enforced
– United States v. Foster à guy charged with “carrying” a weapon during a felony, gun was in bed of pickup truck
o “Rule of Leniency” – In cases of ambiguous law the court must choose interpretation that favors the defendant
Actus Reus
– Actus reus à the physical or external component of a crime – the event that society does not want to occur
o Voluntary conduct (act or omission) + social harm
§ It is sufficient that a person’s conduct included a voluntary act, all aspects of the conduct do not have to be voluntary
o Utilitarianism à cannot deter involuntary acts, useless to punish involuntary actors
o Retribution à a person who did not intentionally act in a way that causes harm does not deserve the punishment
Cases:
– Martin v. State à guy drunk at home, taken to public highway by cop, arrested for being drunk on a public highway
o A criminal conviction requires a voluntary act
– State v. Utter à guy stabbed his son, alleges that he might have had a “conditioned response”
o A conditioned response is not a voluntary act and likely could not sustain conviction (here the conviction was sustained because of a lack of evidence)
o A voluntary act requires willed action
Omissions – Generally we do not punish individuals for failure to act
A failure to act may constitute a criminal breach when:
where a statute imposes a duty
where one stands in a certain relationship to another – (parent-child, spouse-spouse, master-servant)
where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for the other
where one has assumed voluntary care for another and has so secluded the other as to prevent the other from acquiring aid elsewhere
where a person creates a risk of harm to the other
o ex) if you hit someone with care, have duty to check on them
Rationale for limiting liability for omissions:
– Difficult to prove culpable state of mind
– Difficult to determine which omitters should be prosecuted – line drawing problems
– High value placed on individual liberty
Cases:
– People v. Beardsley à man and woman having affair, woman overdosed, guy left her in care of another, she died, conviction of manslaughter overturned
o For liability for an omission the actor must have a legal duty to the individual harmed
– Barber v. Superior Court à man taken off l
the conduct
§ A “gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation”
o (4) Negligently (objective) à the actor should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
o Where the statute does not include a culpability element, the MPC imposes at least a “recklessness” requirement
o Must act with the requisite culpable state for EACH MATERIAL ELEMENT “unless a contrary purpose plainly appears”
– General Intent à an offense that merely requires a culpable state of mind, the definition of the offense may not even refer to a mental state
o Ex) battery
– Specific Intent à An offense that explicitly requires culpability of a certain mental state or more culpable state of mind
o Ex) possession of pot with intent to sell
Statutory Construction à a common issue in criminal litigation is whether the mens rea term applies to all or only some of the actus reus elements
– Legislative intent – courts will try to resolve ambiguities by looking at what the legislature intended
– Position of mens rea term in definition
– Punctuation
– Unless there is evidence to the contrary, the courts will assume that mens rea elements do NOT refer to “attendant circumstances” elements of the crime
– Where the statute codifies something that was feature of the common law it is assumed that the legislature intended to codify all elements of the common law, unless there is evidence to the contrary
Strict Liability à satisfaction of the actus rea alone is sufficient for criminal culpability; no mens rea element need be satisfied
– “public welfare offenses” à administrative rules, usually light punishments, the conduct is wrongful only because it is prohibited, violations often threaten safety of others in society
– On very rare occasions strict liability is imposed to a non-public welfare offense
o Ex) Statutory rape
– There is a strong presumption against strict liability, courts will not merely assume that a statute intended to vacate the mens rea requirement without evidence to that fact
– The MPC allows strict liability only for “violations” and not “crimes”
o MPC requires aspects of mens rea to be met
