Criminal Law Outline

Criminal Law Outline

Theories of Punishment: Justification for Punishment: 2 Broad Categories  opposite

theories

Retribution Theory

Looking backwards; what defendant did; individual not society

Culpability (“Just Desert”) Moral blameworthiness, “just desert,” how deserving is the person of punishment Example : shooting someone vs. shooting someone in self-defense  one is morally worse

Wild Justice: “eye for eye;” retaliation; if someone murders, they deserve to die

Utilitarian Theory

Looking forward; society benefitting society

General Deterrence Deterring other people; one should be punished so that other people do not commit the same crime

Specific Deterrence One should be punished to deter that same person from committing the same crime

Denunciation One should be punished to demonstrate that this action is contrary to society’s morals and values

Incapacitation One should be punished to remove threat from society (prison/ jail)

Rehabilitation One should be punished to help rehabilitate criminal such that he shall be reintroduced into society safely (paternalistic)

 Who do we punish  Broadly: Defendant for doing unlawful acts

 What is the goal of punishment:

o Forbid conduct that will harm society

o Promote correction of conduct (rehabilitate)

 Legislatures: create criminal statutes

 Judges: interpret statutes; set perimeters of punishment (reasonable sentences)

o Theories of punishment dictate how judges sentence a person who is convicted

of a crime

 Necessity and duress closely related

o Pardon v commutation

 Wiped clean slate vs person freed but crime remains

Social Cohesion Condemning in the eyes of the community; sustaining the values of the community o United States v Madoff: man running a pyramid scheme was sentenced to 150- years in prison o Symbolic punishment: give back to the many people who were hurt from his actions o Goes against values of society which must be sustained

Theories of Punishment in Action:  Regina v Dudley & Stevens: men stranded on a life boat killed and ate another to survive o Sometimes difficult to determine which punishment should be given to a criminal (different circumstances)  Symbolic punishment form of retribution and deterrence o United States v Madoff: man running a pyramid scheme was sentenced to 150- years in prison o Must deter others from committing this crime and give back to the many people who were hurt from his actions  Repeated offenses (3-strike law) o United States v Jackson: man committed robbery over and over o Was sentenced to life in prison specific deterrence and incapacitation

Burdens of Proof & Standard of Review

5 Main Burdens of Proof: who has to prove what at trial 1.) Beyond a reasonable doubt- hardest to prove/ highest standard of burden of proof; prosecutions job to prove; 99% sure, used in criminal law a. In Re Winship : juvenile charged with adult crime of larceny with use of preponderance of the evidence; not right established that prosecution must prove everything beyond a reasonable doubt 2.) Clear and convincing evidence- 75% 3.) By a preponderance of the evidence- “more likely than not,” 51%, used in civil cases (torts)

Step 2: Can the Court properly interpret vague words?  3 Key Methods for Interpreting vague words o Plain Meaning : interpret words by referring to their dictionary definition  Parry: plain meaning makes no sense in relation to statute o Ejusdem Generis: limit vague words by comparing them to the surrounding words in the statute  Statute prohibits vehicles and gives examples of cars & motorcycles; Does bicycle count? Can be argued both ways  Parry: Interpretation confines scope of statute beyond what was intended  Parry: Interpretation creates surplusage (extra/ surplus) within the statute, stuff that should not be in there o In Pari Materia: comparing a statute to other similar statutes  Parry: there is a reason for distinguishing this statute from comparative statute

Step 3: Do these interpretations make the statute unconstitutional? Void for Vagueness Doctrine statute may be considered unconstitutionally vague

Void for Vagueness Doctrine (4 Components)

1. Fair warning: statute must give fair warning to the public about what conduct is prohibited 2. Statute cannot give police officers unfettered discretion 3. Legislature must clearly define the elements of a crime 4. The application of the laws is consistent and equal  no discrimination

Papachristou v City of Jacksonville- 4 people (2 back men and 2 white women) were driving and charged with violating a vagrancy statute  No fair warning in the statute (not clear what was unlawful)  Unfettered police discretion (no guidelines for officers when arresting) Fair Warning Statute must give fair warning to the public on what conduct is prohibited  Public must have opportunity to conform behavior  Tell people what the law prohibits and admits  Cannot criminalize people unless they have fair warning because criminal law= liberty loss and stigma  2 components: o 1) What is illegal/ legal actions o 2) What is the maximum sentence for engaging in behavior  Fair warning  standard used is person of average intelligence

 Keeler v Superior Court: Defendant assaulted his pregnant ex-wife killing the fetus and D was charged with murder (unlawful killing of a human being) o Perfect example of fair warning; D cannot be charged with murder because there is nothing in the statute that makes a fetus equivalent to a person o After this case many states enacted/ amended laws to make a fetus= person o May have been a result of an oriented opinion: right before Roe v Wade o Judicial enlargement  not foreseeable to a person Unfettered Discretion of Officials Statute must provide standards to guide law enforcement officers  Without guidelines authorizes and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement  Stop and frisk: stop and question people  Up to officer/ officer has complete discretion about who they arrest  City of Chicago v Morales: A loitering ordinance to prevent gang members from loitering o Perfect example of unfettered police discretion o No guidelines for police officers; they could arrest whomever they wanted Attacks on Vague Statute Vague statutes are attacked on:  Leniency: strictly construed  Due Process Rule of Lenity If the Court has two options of interpretation: one=punish and two=not punish Court should go for the interpretation that does not punish  Same as penal statutes should be strictly/ narrowly construed  Yates v United States- man arrested for violating statute but word is statute “tangible objects” was strictly construed to favor him

Statutory Construction

5 Elements of a Statute (criminal law) 1. Actus Reus: Conduct (usually a verb) action you are doing 2. Mens Rea: Mental State (purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, negligently) adverb in relation to verb 3. Attendant Circumstance: Other material elements; other stuff in crime 4. Exceptions: “unless” or “except”  if you fall under exception, statute does not apply 5. Qualified Language: Certain qualifications must be met before the statute applies; only applies “if” something is met

Examples:

Due Process Clause & Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Cruel & Unusual Punishment & Due Process Clause (14th Amendment) Defining crime in terms of a “status,” rather than a particular activity, violates the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment  Status offense: o Robinson v California- The defendant, a narcotics user, was convicted of a criminal statute that made it a criminal offense for a person to be addicted to the use of narcotics o Person cannot be punished for “being,” status offense= unconstitutional o Hypo: Prostitute cannot be charged for being a prostitute but can be for prostituting their body o Hypo: Statute that makes sleeping in public place criminally punishable; homeless people can argue that this is a status offense- arrested for being homeless  Not Status offense: o Powell v Texas- D arrested for public intoxication in violation of a statute that states, “whoever shall get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in any public place, or at any private house, besides his own, shall be fined- D asserted defense of chronic alcoholism o Majority: alcoholism is different than being an addict, is not a defense to public intoxication o Concurrence: chronic alcoholic has ability to willingly take first drink and can choose to drink in public or in private, taking that first drink is not a status offense  Justice White homelessness is status offense; if alcoholic was homeless it differs o State ex. Rel Harper v Zegeer- reversed Powell  chronic alcoholism is a defense/ intoxication may be used as a defense

Actus Reus- Omissions

MPC 2 (3)

 Liability for the commission of an act may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action, UNLESS: o The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or o A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law (legal duty) Omission A failure to act especially when there is a moral or legal obligation to do so

1. The defendant must have a legal duty to act under the circumstances a. Jones v United States- Defendant was charged with involuntary man slaughter for not providing a baby with proper care in the absence of the child’s mother no legal duty for defendant to do so= not liable

2. The duty to act arises when the defendant is aware of the facts creating the duty to act

3. It must be reasonably possible for the defendant to perform the duty

5 Ways to Impose Legal Duty 1. Contracts (lifeguard, nurse, being paid) 2. Status (parent-child) 3. Voluntary assumption (A swims out to save B, A reaches B then decides B is not worth saving; the saving was voluntarily undertaken by A) 4. Statute (good Samaritan laws) 5. Creation of peril (risk) (A knocks B off the deck of a ship. A has a duty to help to rescue B)

Issues with Omissions  Difficult to prove causation o Defendant not intervening the event would not have occurred  Difficult to prove mens rea o Did the defendant not act intentionally  Infringement on civil liberties  Imposing a legal duty may discourage Good Samaritan behavior o Pope v State- Defendant was charged with felonious abuse of a minor child and misprision of felony for idly standing by and omitting to act when the child’s mother was beating child to death D was not convicted because court did not impose a duty fearing that by imposing one would make less people willing to host others in their home (counter-argument for imposing legal duty= discourage good Samaritan behavior)

Legal Fiction A fact assumed/ or created by the courts which is then used to reach a decision or to apply a legal rule  Court created a legal fiction: doctors act of pulling the plug= an omission o To prevent liability on behalf of doctors o Pulling plug is not an act but an omission of treatment allowing the person to die o Under MPC this is actus reus, but courts created legal fiction so no actus reus for doctors so they cannot be charged with manslaughter o Barber v Supreme Court - doctor removes life support and IV and patient dies; charged with manslaughter but courts created legal fiction that this is an omission not an act so they are not liable o Airedale v Bland - doctor removes life support and IV and patient dies; charged with manslaughter but courts created legal fiction that this is an omission not an act so they are not liable  Killing by lethal injection, even if wanted by patient, is an act but omitting life support is not an act which a doctor can be charged with manslaughter

o United States v Jewell- Defendant drove a car that had 100 pounds of drugs hidden in compartments; he chose to not check but evidence that he knew about existence and did not check to avoid liability if caught (willful blindness)  found liable o Policy Viewpoint: Utilitarian benefit to stop drug trafficking v. individual blameworthiness o Weigh pros and cons of each approach (utilitarian and retributive) o Too lenient (retribution heavy) = no deterrence of drug trafficking  Everyone can use defense of “I did not know” o Too strict (utilitarian heavy)= you are convicting people for true ignorance (too much focus on deterrence)  People who genuinely did not know are convicted

Lesser Offense Rule: if you commit a crime which you thought was a lesser crime and turns out to be a greater offense  you run the risk  Ex: Punch a man in a bar and it turns out to be an undercover cop greater charge

Mistake

MPC 2(1): Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if: a.) The ignorance or mistake negates the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense (negates mens rea component), OR b.) The law provides that the state of mind created by ignorance or mistake constitute a defense

Mistake of Fact

Mala in se crimes Crimes that are morally wrong (ex: child sex crimes) there is no mistake of fact defense available o For mala in se crimes prosecution does not need to prove intent o Regina v Prince - Defendant took the plaintiff’s 14-year-old daughter out of her father’s possession when the minimum age requirement was 16. Defendant believed daughter was 18  mistake of fact o This was a mala in se crime: no defense of mistake of fact of the girls age, even if she told defendant and he had genuine belief o Williams (footnote)- broadening the definition (willful blindness) would make it indistinguishable from the civil doctrine of negligence (not obtaining knowledge)  Requires in effect a finding that the ∆ intended to cheat administration of justice o Garnett v State- mentally ill 20-year-old had sex with 13-year-old believing she was 16 o Court upheld conviction under mala in se theory (strict liability)

Statute silent on mens rea: look at common law presumption o B (A minor) v Director of Public Prosecutions- 15-year-old boy asked 13-year-old girl for oral sex. He believed she was over 14

Honest not Reasonable Requirement Mistake of fact must be honest but does not have to be reasonable; reasonable test can be used to prove honesty the more unreasonable the better chance the jury will not think it is honest o Regina v Morgan- Husband told his friends to gang rape his wife, saying it was her fetish. The men did not know that the sex was not consensual o Look if belief is honest; reasonableness of belief can only be used as evidence for or against the view that the belief was actually held. o An honest mistake of fact is a defense but if it is not reasonable it will be difficult to prove it was honest

Mistake of Law

MPC 2(3): A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when: a.) The statute or other enactment of the defense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise made available prior to the conduct alleged; OR b.) He acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in a. A statute or other enactment b. A judicial decision, opinion, or judgment c. An administrative order or grant of permission, or d. An official interpretation of the public officer or body changed by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense

Legal Doctrine: “ignorance of the law is no excuse”  MPC provides exception

Official Statement of Law For a mistake of law defense, you can reasonably rely on an official statement of law; one needs to reasonably rely on an official statement of law o United States v Albertini- defendant protested on a Naval Base and after receiving a 9th circuit decision in his favor, he continued to protest. Defendant was charged before the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s decision not liable because he reasonably relied on an official statement of law (circuit court’s ruling)that allowed him to protest

Mistake of Law for Extremely Complex Laws Where law is extremely and exceedingly complex, ignorance of the law is permitted

Step 1: Is the offense a public welfare offense (protects the general public; if goes against public welfare then strict liability) o United States v Dotterweich- defendant is manager of a drug company failed to inform consumers of a danger of the prescription of drugs o Liable because public welfare offense: mislabeled drugs can cause danger to many people

Step 2 : Penalty of the crime o High penalty: unlikely to impose strict liability (violates fundamental fairness) o Low penalty: likely to impose strict liability o Staples v United States- Man had unregistered semi-automatic gun. A metal piece was worn down to the extent that the gun could be fired automatically. Prison sentence was 10 years o Usually strict liability should apply but court considered high sentence and guns being intertwined with American culture (court’s hesitant to rule against) o Vicarious liability is permitted when penalties are slight

Step 3: Would the conviction hurt the defendant’s reputation o Prison sentence: usually not strict liability; stigma that goes along with being criminal o State v Guminga: Employee at restaurant served alcohol to a minor. The owner did not know about or condone the act (vicarious liability). Maximum punishment was 1 year in prison or $3000 fine court did not find defendant liable; his reputation would be ruined for something he did not do

Step 4 : What was the legislative intent

Theft Offenses

Crime of theft dates back centuries, rules did not change much

4 Key Theft Offenses 1.) Larceny a. Larceny by trick 2.) Robbery 3.) Theft by false pretenses 4.) Embezzlement

Types of Property (3) o Personal property- chattels, belongings (movable) o Real property- land, things attached to land (unmovable) o Services

Larceny Actor obtains possession of property, but not title, without the owner’s consent

o Trespassory taking: owner did not consent to taking o Intent element: intent to permanently deprive another of his property o Asportation: taking object aware/ moving it o Courts have lowered requirement to include dominion or control over another’s property o Personal property only o Larceny by trick : obtains possession by making a false statement to the owner o Requires mere possession of the property is obtained not the title o Hufstetler v. State- ∆ drove up to a gas station, asked the attendant to fill up his car and for some oil. When attendant when to get the oil the ∆ drove away without paying  attendant never consented to ∆ taking gas without paying o ∆ did have possession but not title

Robbery Larceny + battery/ assault; accomplished by means of force or fear o Personal property only o Larceny is a necessary element of robbery

Theft by False Pretenses Defendant makes false pretenses or representation to the owner of the property to obtain both title and possession o Victim actually hands over property o Individual getting full entitlement o Fraud o Intent: to defraud the owner of that property and “the intent to injure or defraud is presumed when the unlawful act, which results in injury or loss, is proved to have been knowingly committed ( Nelson v United States )” o The owner transferred the property to the defendant in reliance on the representation o People v Williams- ∆ used a credit card encoded with stolen numbers; cashier consented to give ∆ the gift card with belief that the credit card was valid o Applies to personal property or services o People v Ashley- ∆ got loans from two different women by lying about the purpose and his intentions to pay back  misrepresentation of present and future facts; women who provided money intended to pass both title and possession

Embezzlement Defendant deposited or entrusted with any property, money or effects (lawfully possesses the property) but later misappropriates it o Lawfully obtains item then uses it in a manner for any purpose other than which it was entrusted or deposited o Constructive possession- when one has the power and intention to exercise dominion and control over a thing, either directly or through other persons

o Homicide that would be considered murder pursuant to 210, EXCEPT that the defendant was under extreme mental or emotional disturbance (EED) (Voluntary manslaughter) o Lowers a murder charge to manslaughter

210- Criminally Negligent Homicide o Homicide committed negligently o No common law equivalents o Smallest penalty; broadest net (catch most people)

Extreme Emotional Disturbance (EED)  only an MPC defense o This defense is a partial defense (excuse) o Was the person mentally/ emotionally disturbed shrink comes into court o Words alone may be enough; provocation not needed o Lowers a murder charge to manslaughter o Objective prong : EED must have a reasonable excuse o Subjective prong : Reasonableness is determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances he believes them to be o “A reasonable person does not kill” o People v Casassa- defendant was obsessed with girl and killed her when she rejected him. D said he was suffering from EED  court rejected this: he must satisfy both the subjective and objective element for the defense to be successful

Common Law (Homicide) First degree= intent; Second degree= no intent

1 st Degree Murder Homicide was willful, deliberate, and premeditated o Willful= intentional o Deliberate- cold blood vs hot blood o Premeditated- thought about it or spur of the moment o Consider motive, manner, and planning o Different jurisdictions= different results o Commonwealth v Carrol- Defendant shot his wife in the back of the head after a heated marital argument and after he placed gun by bedside table (intentional)  No time to short (between intent and act)  spur of moment sufficient o State v Guthrie- Defendant stabbed his coworker after being hit in nose by towel (intentional)

2 nd Degree Murder (Depraved Heart Murder) o Homicide committed recklessly with an extreme indifference to the value of human life (ultra-reckless, reckless with extra) (gross deviation from reasonable care standard)

o Commonwealth v Malone- 17-year-old played Russian Roulette, pulled trigger three times and on the third time it killed his friend (1/4 chance) because of the D’s indifference to human life, the unintentional killing is upgraded to depraved heart murder (extreme recklessness) o United States v Fleming- defendant was drunk driving on the wrong side of the road, collided with another car and killed the other driver  the defendant’s gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care = charge of depraved heart murder

1 st Degree Manslaughter Homicide that would be 1st degree murder EXCEPT that the defendant acted out of a heat of passion o Partial defense: mitigates/ lowers sentence but does not mean person goes free o Excuse not a justification o Provocation

2 nd Degree Manslaughter Homicide committed recklessly o Commonwealth v Welansky- A club owner blocked the emergency exits in his club with stuff. When fire broke out, may people died because the exits were insufficient guilty for involuntary manslaughter for conduct in failing to make club safe which caused death of people

Heat of Passion (partial defense) Expands the breadth of the Pigeon Hole Test  mitigates but does not set person free o Liberal Common Law : Heat of Passion Defense o Defendant must have acted in hot blood o A reasonable person would have been provoked o Defendant must not have cooled off o A reasonable person would not have cooled off o Maher v People- A man shot his wife’s lover after hearing that she was adulterous with him (intentional) court ruled that pigeon hole test is outdated and that jury should review whether the defendant acted out of heat of passion o Old Common Law: Pigeon Hole Test (Adequate Provocation) o There are only 5 acts that are legally sufficient to provoke: o Extreme assault and battery o Mutual combat o Defendant’s illegal arrest o Injury or serious abuse to a close relative o Sudden discovery of a significant other’s adultery o Giroud v State- Wife verbally attacks her husband and he attacked her 19 times (intentional) words alone are not adequate provocation, words must be accompanied by conduct then they may be adequate provocation (“may”= not all conduct)

BAARK Felonies : 5 fundamental felony murder crimes/ most common ( Think Felony Murder )  B : Burglary  A : Arson  R : Robbery  R : Rape  K : Kidnapping

MPC 210(1): criminal homicide constitutes murder when (b) it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape  BARRK hidden in here

Rationale FOR the Felony-Murder Rule:  Deterrence (primary justification for felony-murder rule) o Deters felons from killing negligently o Deters commission of felonies in general o Deters abuse of a claimed defense of accidental killing  Retribution o Felons additional depraved purpose aggravates his culpability for causing death carelessly (because committing felony, culpability bumped up) o Achieves wild justice “eye for eye” retribution  Ease the prosecution’s burden of convicting felons for homicide  Incapacitation keep out of society for much longer

Rationale AGAINST the Felony-Murder Rule:  Deterrence: How do you deter the unintentional?  Retribution: Conviction is disproportionate to culpability level? o Disproportionate punishment if the murder is an accident; person runs the risk o Violates the central requirement of mens rea and proportionality o Higher sentence for someone less culpable  Due Process Violation violates the traditions of fundamental fairness o Can made due process/ cruel and unusual punishment argument most courts reject this because it is a long time standard  Deterrence theory operates weakly: assumes the rational actor; most felons are not always reasonable  Proving a person guilty without allowing a defense (procedural) undermines sense of justice guilty of most serious crime without culpability  Macaulay arbitrary and capricious (is everyone going to be charged or is the prosecution going to choose who?)  Felony murder messes with the grading system of homicide offenses

o “Throws sand in a nicely graded system”

Merger Doctrine An assault-based felony cannot be used as a predicate for felony murder. The premise of the underlying felony must be something other than inflicting harm  Examples: o Rape: premise is having sex  Merger doctrine does not apply o Armed Robbery: premise is stealing belongings  Merger doctrine does not apply o Assault: premise is physical injury  Merger doctrine does apply o Murder: premise is killing someone  Merger doctrine does apply  Merged into charge= merger doctrine applies  No felony murder  In situations where the merger doctrine applies, the felony murder is “merged” into the actual charge  People v Chun- rival street gang in a car shot at the other gang in a car when stopped at a red light. Court held that the underlying felony (shooting into an occupied car) was an assaultive felony and merges  not felony murder

Felony Murder Cases:  People v. Philips: A doctor convinced a family to use a non-surgical method to treat their daughter. The daughter later died, and the doctor was charged with a felony of grand theft o The court denied the use of the felony murder rule since grand theft is not an inherently dangerous felony  People v. Stamp : ∆ tried to rob a bank while armed. The guard sustained a heart attack due to the shock and fear caused by the robbery o In this jurisdiction, felony murder is NOT limited to foreseeability o Without the felony murder doctrine, what level of homicide could be proven?  People v Burton: ∆ killed a person while committing an armed robbery. The court ruled that the armed robbery CAN be the predicate for felony murder

Who Can Commit the Killing?  Agency Theory (Majority Rule) o A ∆ is criminally liable for the actions of any co-felon  Proximate Cause Theory o A ∆ may be criminally liable for a non-felon’s fatal actions if proximate causation analysis is satisfied o Focus on foreseeability  State v Canola- ∆1 kills the owner of a jewelry store during a robbery. The owner, in response to the robbery, killed ∆