Criminal Law Outline

Criminal Law Outline
Gershel
Fall 2010
 
 
I.Homicide
A. Homicide Elements:
                                1) Corpus Delicti: (Actus Reus, “Body of the Crime”)
                                                a) Death as a result
                b) Criminal Agency of Another- term “criminal agency” means not as the result of accident, natural causes, or suicide. 
i) The defendant’s identity as the perpetrator is not an element of the corpus delicti, although ultimately the prosecution must prove identity in order to secure a conviction.
 
For example : in the case where the victim’s body was found in the desert, the court held that there was insufficient proof of criminal agency, even though the defendant was seen with the victim shortly before the victim disappeared and was arrested afterwards while driving the victim’s car. While these facts
arguably proved that the defendant had the opportunity to kill the victim, they did not prove anything about the cause of death (i.e. criminal agency).
 
                        2) Mens Rea (mental intent or negligence)
 
            B. Proving Homicide
1) Actus Reus – The physical part of the crime {Corpus Delicti}(crime scene, action)
2) Mens Rea – The mental part of a crime (mindset, {intent or not})
                                3) Evidence
                                                a) Direct- “evidence that provides direct factual information in a
trial, Ex/ a photograph, a document, or a witness’s account                             
b) Circumstantial- “evidence based on facts that allows a court/
jury to infer that somebody is guilty without definite proof”
i) Circumstantial evidence may be used to prove either or both elements of the corpus delicti. By circumstantial evidence, we mean a chain of facts or circumstances from which we can draw a reasonable conclusion.
ii) The prosecution is not required to actually produce the victim’s body in order to establish the death of a living human being. This element may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
 
For example: even though the baby’s body was not found in the case where the mom dropped the baby off the bridge, the court drew the conclusion that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish the baby’s death based on the facts that the baby was only a few weeks old, was dropped off the bridge into a swift, flooded creek, the baby’s cap was found next to the creek, and the baby was never seen or heard from again.(Warmke)
 
Rationale of Rule: clever murderers could avoid prosecution entirely by simply hiding or destroying all evidence of the body (like the wood chipper scene in Fargo).
 
iii) Circumstantial evidence may also be used to prove criminal agency, as in the case where the victim’s body was found neatly laid out in a rocky area, but the court concluded that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of criminal agency based on the facts that there were signs of a scuffle, the victim suffered a wound to the back of her head plus scratches and abrasions, and the medical examiner testified that she died as the result of manual strangulation caused by external pressure applied to her neck.            
 
                                General rule: is that the defendant’s out-of-court statements cannot be
used to prove the corpus delicti.
 
a. Rationale: We are not totally comfortable with the trustworthiness and reliability of out-of-court statements which the defendant could have been coerced or tricked into making by the police.
 
b. This rationale can be extended to other contexts in which we have concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of the defendant’s out-of-court statements.
 
                For example : in the case in which the prosecution used a cellmate’s affidavit to try and prove the corpus delicti, the court concluded that this statement could not be considered in determining whether the corpus delicti had been established because cellmate’s have much to gain by making statements to the police, which raises concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of the statement.
 
iv) Generally speaking, even if the facts of two cases are different, the
rule will be applied so long as the principle or rationale behind the rule
still applies. But if the facts are different and the principle or rationale
behind the rule does not apply, generally speaking courts will create an
exception to the rule.
 
                                v) The defendant’s in-court statements are admissible to prove the
corpus delicti because protections are in place (such as the right to counsel, the presence of the public, and the presence of a judge) that make us feel comfortable that voluntary statements made by the defendant against the defendant’s own interests (like the mom who admitted in open court that she dropped the baby off the bridge) are trustworthy and reliable.
 
                                vi) Generally speaking, if the conditions or concerns that led a court to
adopt a rule change over time, the court may modify or abolish the rule, so long as the legislature has not codified the rule by statute.
 
For example: if a state required that all police interrogations be videotaped and that the defendant was entitled to the presence of counsel, that might be sufficient to eliminate our concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of such statements and to lead a court to abolish the rule that out-of-court statements by the defendant cannot be used to prove the corpus delicti.
 
II. Punishment/ Purposes of Criminal Law
            A. Utilitarian Theory – seeks to accomplish the greatest good for greatest number.
– looks forward to the expected consequences of   punishment,
and argues that punishment is justifiable to the extent that it will reduce future crime.
-views the individual defendant more as a means to an end, and it focuses heavily on deterrence — punishment is justifiable to the extent that it can be expected to deter the defendant and others from committing future crimes. Or withholding punishment is justifiable if this incentive/reward will encourage the defendant and others to avoid future criminal behavior. This prong of utilitarian theory assumes that individuals think about the potential consequences of their actions before they act.
 
1) Specific Deterrence – punishing an individual who has broken the law to
specifically deter him or her from breaking the law in the future.
 
2) General Deterrence -punishing an individual who has broken the law as an
example to generally deter other members of society from engaging in similar behavior;
 
                                3) Rehabilitation -changing the behavior of those who have broken the law so
that they will not commit more crimes when they are released.
 
                                4) Incapacitation- physically or otherwise preventing individuals from
perpetrating future crimes (i.e. prison, the death penalty, etc.); For
Utilitarian theory-incapacitation by imprisonment or otherwise can
prevent the incapacitated individual from committing future crimes, can
specifically deter that individual from committing future crimes, and can
generally deter others from engaging in similar behavior.   
 
 
                B.  Retributive Theo