Criminal Law Outline

Principle of Legality
I. Principle of legality is the doctrine that there can be no judicial crime-making
a. This means there are no common law crimes, because common law is judicial law-making, which is forbidden under the legality principle when it comes to criminal law (Keeler v. Superior Court)
b. Judicial enlargement of a statute violates the principle of legality when the enlargement is unforeseeable. (In Re Banks)
c. Three corollaries of the legality principle
i. The statutes should be understandable to reasonable law-abiding persons
ii. Criminal statutes should be crafted so as not to delegate basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis
iii. Judicial interpretation of ambiguous statutes should be biased in favor of the accused (lenity doctrine)
d. Doctrine of Void-For-Vagueness – the doctrine, based on the Due Process Clause, requiring that a criminal statute state explicitly and definitely what acts are prohibited, so as to provide fair warning and preclude arbitrary enforcement (In Re Banks)
i. A criminal statute must be sufficiently definite to give notice of the required conduct to one who would avoid its penalties, and to guide the judge in its application and the lawyer in defendant one charged with its violation. However, no more than a reasonable degree of certainty can be demanded. Nor is it unfair to require that one who deliberately goes perilously close to an area of proscribed conduct shall take the risk that he may cross the line.
ii. Three reasons US Supreme Court say they are bad:
1. Ordinary people don’t have reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited and act accordingly
2. Encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the laws
3. Some vague laws can get too close to prohibiting protected freedoms and inhibit exercise of First Amendment rights
e. Doctrine of Strict Construction—the doctrine that judges should resolve residual uncertainty in the meaning of penal statutes in favor of the accused (In Re Banks)
i. Judicial enlargement of a statute should only be when the enlargement is foreseeable
ii. A statute challenged on the grounds of impermissible vagueness should not be tested for constitutional specificity in a vacuum, but should be judged in the light of its common law meaning, its statutory history and the prior judicial interpretation of its particular terms.
1. Criminal statutes must be strictly construed, but the courts must nevertheless construe them with regard to the evil which it is intended to suppress. The intent of the legislature controls the interpretation of a statute.
iii. The doctrine of overbreadth (a statute that is unnecessarily broad so that it invades area of protected freedoms, and is therefore void) has not and will not be invoked when a limiting construction has been or could be placed on the challenged statute.
1. A statute is not overbroad when it is sufficiently narrowed by the requirement that the defendant act with wrongful intent, thereby omitting from its scope people who act with legitimate purposes.
II. Model Penal Code
a. 1.02
i. Construed according to the fair import of their terms
ii. When language is susceptible of differing constructions, it shall be interpreted to
1. Further the general purposes stated in this Section
a. Definition of offenses
i. Forbid and prevent conduct that inf