Criminal Law Outline

CRIMINAL LAW – Klein – Fall 2011
 
I. INTRODUCTION
 
1. BACKGROUND
 
·         A crime consists of an act (actus reus) and a mental state (mens rea)
o   Actus reus is basically anything that is not a mens rea
·         Mens Rea is central to criminal liability
·         Crimes are grouped according to the interested protected:
o   Securities of the person
o   Securities of the habitation
o   Security of rights in property
o   Public health, safety, and morals
o   Public authority
·         Elements of an offense:
o   The Act: the physical activity or omission of defendant
o   The State of Mind: (mens rea) state of mind of defendant at time of act, result, or attendant circumstance
o   Result: thing caused by defendant’s act and state of mind
o   Attendant Circumstance: circumstances existing at time of defendant’s act
·         The Rule of Lenity – where there is ambiguity in the criminal statues, doubts are resolved in favor of the defendant. If a statute is ambiguous, it should be interpreted in favor of the defendant.
·         Theories of Punishment
o   Deterrence
§  General: discourages others from committing the offense
§  Specific: criminal is deterred from similar behavior
o   Retribution/punishment – Criminal law uses punishment instead of treatment because punishment comes with moral condemnation.
§  Retribution – punishment that is imposed as revenge/repayment for the offense.
o   Rehabilitation
o   Condemnation
·         Lesser Included Offenses
o   If a crime includes all of the elements of another offense, it is a lesser included offense. An actor cannot be convicted of both, but charging a Δ with the larger offense implicitly charges him with the lesser offense.
§  i.e. robbery is larceny with force or threat of force; thus larceny is a lesser included offense of robbery. An actor charged with robbery can be convicted of either, but not both.
o   Test for when something is a lesser included offense:
§  It is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts that require to establish the offense charged.
§  It differs from the offense charged only in that it is a less serious injury
§  It differs from the offense charged only in that it requires a less culpable mental state
§  It consists of an attempt to commit the offense charged
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. THE COURT STRUCTURE OF TEXAS
 
 
II. ACTUS REUS
 
1. INTRODUTION
 
·         Actus reus – physical act. The physical act that the person must perform in order to incur liability for the crime. This includes all non-mental elements, the physical activity, any result that must occur, and the circumstances that exist. The act is part of but often not the complete actus reus of the offense.
·         Mere thoughts alone do not constitute a crime, although speech is sufficient
·         3 Step Analysis:
1.      Identify and describe the elements of the offense
a.       Consider the elements of the offense in terms of four categories, although a particular crime may not contain an element in each category, although to some extent constitutional considerations may require proof of some element in each of the first two categories:
                                                  i.      The Act – physical activity or omission of defense
                                                ii.      The State of Mind – Mens Rea. There may or may not be a state of mind.
                                              iii.      The Result – Things caused by the Δ’s act and state of mind. Where there is a result there must be causation.
                                              iv.      Attendant Circumstance – (A/C) A fact in the world. They are circumstances that exist at the time of the Δ’s act. It is not caused or created by the Δ. There may nor may not be a A/C.
2.      Identify any so-called defenses, which are really means of disproving one of the elements of the offense.
3.      Consider defenses in the true sense. These are matter which if established prevent or reduce liability despite proof of all elements of the offense. “True defenses” which are self-defense, entrapment, and insanity related matters.
 
Visualize the basic framework of analysis described above through the following formula (when there is criminal liability):
[(Act + State of Mind) —(Causation)–à Result] + Attendant Circumstance  = Liability
·         TPC § 1.07 (a)(1): Act is bodily movement (voluntary or involuntary) and speech
 
2. CONDUCT
 
·         2 general concerns regarding the act necessary for criminal liability:
1.      The extent to which crimes must be defined in terms of conduct and whether criminal liability requires voluntary acts.
2.      The degree to which criminal liability can be based on omissions rather than actual actions.
·         An Act must be voluntary
o   MPC § 2.01 (TPC § 6.01) Requirements of Voluntary Act; Omission as Basis of Liability; Possession as an Act.
(1)   A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable.
(2)   The following are not voluntary acts within the meanings of this section:
a.       A reflex or convulsion;
b.      A bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep;
c.       Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion;
d.      A bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.
(3)   Possession is an act, within the meaning of this section if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.
o   TPC § 6.01 Requirement of Voluntary Act
                  (a) Person commits offense only if voluntarily engages in conduct (act, omission, or possession)
·         General requirements of an act:
1. The need for some identifiable conduct in the definition of a crime
2. The requirement that the act (or omission) be “voluntary
 
·         You cannot punish status. A crime based on status is generally not voluntary and therefore not criminal.
o   Robinson v. State of California 1962 (CB 161). Two officers saw Δ with needle marks and scar tissue in his arms. The Δ had admitted to the use of narcotics. A California Statute makes it illegal to “either use narcotics, or to be addicted to use of narcotics”. Narcotic addiction is a disease, an illness, and to criminalize a disease would be a violation of the 8th and 14th amendment. That portion of the statute referring to ‘addicted to the use’ of narcotics is based upon a condition or status. To be addicted to the use of narcotics is said to be a status condition and not an act. There is no criminal liability for status because it is not an act, or because it is involuntary. Being addicted to the use of narcotics is not a crime. Punishment for status involves punishment merely for the mental element – no act would be needed.
·         Every state requires that an act be voluntary.
o   Powell v. Texas 1968 (CB 165). Δ is charged with violating Vernon’s Ann.TPC, Art. 477 (1952): “Whoever shall get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in any public place, or at any private house except his own, shall be fined not exceeding one hundred dollars”. (TPC 49.02) TPC Art. 477 is specifically directed to the accused presence while in a state of intoxication. Δ was found drunk and was arrested and charged with being found in a state of intoxication in public. Dr’s found that Δ is a chronic alcoholic who cannot control his behavior when he as reached a state of intoxication. Δ argued that he had the disease of chronic alcoholism and couldn’t be punished for his status as an alcoholic. Is being punished for being drunk in public a violation of the Δ’s 8th and 14th amendment rights when the Δ is an alcoholic? There is no criminal liability without a voluntary act, appearing in public is a voluntary act. Court distinguishes this from Robinson, saying Powell was convicted for being in public while drunk (act), not for being a chronic alcoholic (status). The 8th and 14th amendments’ primary purpose is to direct the method or kind punishment imposed for the violation of criminal statutes, the nature and conduct made criminal is ordinarily relevant only to the fitness of   the punishment imposed. Here the findings call into play the principle that a person may not be punished if the condition is essential to constitute the defined crime is part of the pattern of his disease and is occasioned by a compulsion symptomatic of the disease. This law has imposed a criminal sanction for public behavior, which may create substantial health and hazards for both the appellant and for members of the general community. Suffering from a compulsion is not a defense. This case got the USSC because it is a constitutional issue. Powell is a set-up case, where 2 attorneys got together to see what the real holding in Robinson was. The decision has a plurality opinion – 4 justices said you don’t need a voluntary act to impose liability; 4 dissenting justices said you do need a voluntary act. White, concurring, said you do need a voluntary act but there was a voluntary act here.
o   Common knowledge says Powell doesn’t constitutionalize voluntariness, but Klein says to look at the vote – it does constitutionalize voluntariness because White agrees with the dissenters on the law.
·         Jones v. City of Los Angeles 2006 (CB 174). The court held that homeless persons residing in Skid Row were entitled to have the city enjoined from certain enforcement of the ordinance against them. The ordinance provides, “no person shall sit, lie or sleep in or upon any street, sidewalk or other public way.” Appellants had no other choice than to be on the streets.  They said “we find no 8th amendment protection