Criminal Law Jinks Spring 2014
Function of the Criminal Law
· Henry Hart – Essay on the method of the criminal law:
o There are general rules which every person's conduct must comply with.
o Rules are considered valid and binding on all persons who are made subject to the terms of the rules.
§ The primary addressee who is supposed to conform his conduct must know of:
· The law's existence
· Of its content in relevant respects.
§ The primary addressee must be able to comply with it and willing to do so.
o Sanctions predictably follow from non-compliance to the rules.
o Criminal Law comes with a solemn, formal condemnation from the community.
o There is punishment.
· Two Common Methods of Bringing Criminal Charges
o Preliminary Hearing/Information – Facts and info brought to judge and he makes decision on whether there is enough probably cause evidence to bring charges to a trial.
§ “Information” – document filed by the prosecution that formally alleges facts and charges and cites penal code provisions in support.
o Grand Jury/Indictment – Typically 23 jurors that make the probable cause determination. The facts and information are brought ex parte to the Grand Jury without the defendant present. Grand Jury issues an indictment.
§ “Indictment” – document issued by the Grand Jury with specific allegations, facts, and cites to the penal code.
· Constitutional Right to a Jury trial – in all cases when potential max penalty exceeds 6 months, the defendant has a fundamental right to a jury trial.
o Juries commonly made up of 12 people. Lowest number possible is 6.
§ If less than 12 person jury – unanimity required for conviction.
§ 12 or more person jury – substantial majority required for conviction.
o Presumption of innocence
§ When reviewing evidence and determining if a case can go to the jury, the trial court views evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, resolving all problems and making inferential leaps in favor of the prosecution.
· Prosecution must show enough evidence to prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt on each of the elements.
· Jury gets to make a more even handed determination, weighing all the factors.
§ Burden of Proof: Beyond a Reasonable doubt – subjective state of near certitude.
· Standard cannot be quantified by the judge. Any attempt to clarify the standard would only lead to confusion.
· Reason why: Better to let a guilty man go free than convict an innocent man.
· If the evidence is such that reasonable jurymen must necessarily have such a doubt, the judge must require acquittal. But if a reasonable mind might fairly have a reasonable doubt or might fairly not have one, the case is for the jury.
· Judge views evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
§ Appellate Court standard – look to evidence and determine whether any reasonable fact finder would conclude that the prosecution established proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Punishment
Rationales for punishment:
· Utilitarian/Consequentialist: some effect that issues from the punishment justifies its imposition.
o Notion of General Deterrence – punishing a law breaker sends signal to other members that similar conduct will cause similar behavior.
o Specific Deterrence – those being punished are incentivized not to commit crimes in the future.
o Incapacitation – imprisonment incapacitates the law breaker for a period of time, keeping them from committing more crimes.
o Rehabilitation – Some punishments might help rehabilitate the law breaker.
o Public Educational Function – teaches the public what is an unacceptable performance.
o Imposition of punishment displaces or makes less likely the resort to private violence (vigilante justice).
· Retributivist: actors should punished if they deserve to be punished.
o Actors have a debt to society that must be paid via punishment.
o Actor asserted a false claim of superiority over their victims and must be punished to show claim was false.
When we ask if a defendant should be punished, we are also asking if there is any general justification for their actions.
· Principle of Proportionality – An Actor's punishment must be proportional to his crime.
o Comes from the 8th Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. 2 Limitations:
§ Gratuitous Punishment – If no rationale for having a punishment that severe, it is unconstitutional.
§ Grossly Excessive (or grossly disproportionate) – Certain punishments are grossly excessive in relation to the conduct that the person is charged with committing.
· Death Penalty Jurisprudence – Is the crime so severe as to justify the ultimate of penalties?
o Only imposed in the most severe cases.
o Death penalty is irrevocable so requires careful consideration before applying.
· Non-Capital Sentences – specific terms of imprisonment. Less strict on proportionality.
o Solem v. Helm 3 Step test –
§ Gravity of Offense and harshness of the penalty imposed – look to proportionality.
§ Sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction – looking at other types of crimes in the same jurisdiction and the proportionality in those cases.
§ Sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions – look at other states and their punishment scheme for the same crime.
o Harmulin 4 Step Test:
§ Primacy of the Legislature – Court should give deference to policy concerns imposed by the legislature.
§ Variety of the Penological Schemes – can pick either the utilitarian or retributivist scheme, or a mix.
§ Nature of our federal system – federal courts must defer to state criminal schemes.
§ Requirement that the Proportionality Review be guided by objective factors – federal court must have objective factors to substitute their judgment for state court's judgment.
Elements of Criminal Statutes
· Principle of Legality – No crime without law, no punishment without law – i.e. a person may not be convicted and punished unless her conduct was defined as criminal.
o Requires:
Ø Fair notice – criminal statutes must be understandable by reasonable, law-abiding citizens.
· Must be drafted in language that is understandable and accessible.
· Citizens must not have to guess what is prohibited.
Ø Specification in the statute of Discretion by Public Officials – must n
n Statute – Some courts refer to a specific intent offense as an offense in which the mens rea is specified in the statute.
· Purposefully or Knowingly – the statute requires purposefully or knowingly as the required mental state.
· Further Purpose – Specific intent statutes that include a special kind of element, which requires actors engage in a certain kind of conduct with some further purpose that motivates the conduct described in the statute.
Ø General Intent – When a statute does not specify any further purpose.
o Original Common Law Approach was whether the acts were committed maliciously and wickedly.
Ø Willful Blindness (Common Law Approach) – awareness of high probability of fact in question plus deliberate avoidance of finding out.
o MPC §2.02 – General Requirements of Culpability:
Ø (1) Four mental states: Purposely, Knowingly, recklessly, or negligently
Ø (2) Kinds of Culpability:
· (a) Purposely (intentionally)-
o Conduct or Result Element – means conscious objective of the actor to engage in conduct of that character, or to achieve that result.
o Attendant Circumstance Element – the actor is aware of the existence of the attendant circumstances, or hopes or believes the circumstances exist.
o Most culpable mental state.
· (b) Knowingly
o Conduct & Attendant Circumstances Elements – the actor is aware that his conduct is of that nature or is aware of the attendant circumstances.
o Results Element – actor is practically certain that the result will occur because of his conduct.
o Willful Blindness – knowingly elements are satisfied where an actor is aware of a high probability of existence of a fact.
§ Prosecution does not have to establish deliberate avoidance (contrary to CL).
§ Exception – if actor actually believes the fact does not exist.
· (c) Recklessly – conscious risk creation that is culpable.
o Actor must be aware of risk and consciously disregard it.
o Risk must be a substantial and unjustifiable risk
o Disregard of the risk involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.
o Assessment includes an individualized assessment of culpability.
· (d) Negligently – a culpable failure to perceive the creation of risk. Same pieces as Recklessly, except the actor is negligent because he fails to perceive the risk.
o Actor should have been aware of the risk.
o Substantial and unjustifiable risk.
o Gross deviation from a reasonable standard of conduct
o Least culpable mental state.
