Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)

7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)

1/16

Criminal Law Tutoring

Session 2Feb. 9, 2011


2/16

Overview Criminal law system Trial procedure

Evidence basics Burden of proof

Juries Advantages Disadvantages

Issues in punishment Blame Justifications

Retribution Utilitarianism Vengeance

Sentencing

Defining criminal conduct Legality Proportionality Actus reus Mens rea

Mistake of fact Strict liability Mistake of Law

Rape Actus reus Mens rea Reform issues

Homicide Premeditation Provocation

Unintended killings Felony-murder Death penalty

Significance of theresulting harm

Causation Attempt

Group culpability Complicity Corporate liability Conspiracy

Principles of exculpation Justifications Excuses Insanity


3/16

Where we are now Criminal law system Trial procedure

Evidence basics Burden of proof

Juries Advantages Disadvantages

Issues in punishment Blame Justifications

Retribution Utilitarianism Vengeance

Sentencing

Defining criminal conduct Legality Proportionality Actus reus Mens rea

Mistake of fact Strict liability Mistake of Law

Rape Actus reus Mens rea Reform issues

Homicide Premeditation Provocation

Unintended killings Felony-murder Death penalty

Significance of theresulting harm

Causation Attempt

Group culpability Complicity Corporate liability Conspiracy

Principles of exculpation Justifications Excuses Insanity


4/16

Sentencing

Generally: There are guidelines, but judges have broaddiscretion

Sentencing cases United States v. Milken: Walks through a whole bunch of factors

(pro-long sentence and anti-) that judge used, and the upshot isthat this type of crime is hard to discover and therefore gets aharsh sentence. Note: This case was before federal sentencing

guidelines.

United States v. Jackson: Life in prison without parole forrobbing a bank right after because D had previous felonies.

United States v. Gementera: D had to wear a sandwich board.Are creative sentences OK?


5/16

Sentencing

What to take from these cases: How do you justify the sentence? Through retribution?

Deterrence?

Are there things that shouldnt be punished at all? (Segue intonext topic)


6/16

Defining criminal conduct: Legality

Crimes must be defined by law Formality (written down) Universality (applies to everyone) Generality (written in general form) Non-retroactivity (no tailoring law to fit specific conduct)

Constitution prohibits this (no ex post facto laws) Why codify whats a crime?

People have to have an idea if theyre committing an illegal act Cant create common-law crimes

Commonwealth v. Mochan: Cant convict D of obscene phone calls iftheres no statue that obscene phone calls are criminal


7/16


Rule of Lenity (CB p. 142): When a statute is ambiguous,the ambiguity must be construed in Ds favor. Pro: Erring on the side of not convicting people of things they

didnt know were crimes

Con: People can use this rule to find loopholes in the statutesMcBoyle v. United States: D convicted of transporting a

stolen airplane. The statute only mentioned things withwheels (because airplanes hadn't been invented yet) Dsconviction overturned.

United States v. Dauray: D had a stack of loose child pornimages. Conviction overturned because statute could beread not to criminalize loose photos.


8/16


Even when act is heinous, no conviction if the crimewasnt defined (probably)

Keeler v. Superior Court and Rogers v. Tennessee: Keelerlooks at the statute and says no murder. Rogers says crime was murder even though just outside the statute.

If the statute is too vague, it cant be saved Chicago v. Morales: U.S. Supreme Court rules anti-loitering law is

too vague and does not give people warning of whatsloitering.


9/16

Defining criminal conduct:

Proportionality

Two ways to look at this: Lesser crimes deserve lesser sentences Harshness of sentence should fit the severity of the crime

Ewing v. California: D convicted under 3-strikes law forstealing golf clubs. Was sentenced to 25-to-life becauseof previous qualifying crimes.

Majority affirmed sentence under incapacitation/utilitariangrounds: Better if this guy locked up.

Several dissents: punishment didnt seem to fit crime.


10/16

Defining criminal conduct: Actus Reus

Basic definition: A voluntary act. This goes along withactus reus but is separate.

More complicated definition: The act thats needed tomake the crime

Three components of actus reus Conduct: D did criminal act Result: That resulted in definition of crime Attendant Circumstances: Proof of what else is needed.

Examples: the thing of value in theft, or the victims agein statutory rape


11/16

Defining criminal conduct: Actus Reus

Back to a voluntary act: P has to prove first that D actedvoluntarily.

People v. Martin: D was only drunk in public because the policebrought him into public. Not voluntary.

People v. Newton: D did not remember shooting anyone. Ifyoure so out of it you dont remember, not voluntary. At least

in this case.

People v. Decina: D was an epileptic who had a seizure whiledriving. Because D knew this could happen and chose to drive

anyway, this was a voluntary act.

Sleepwalking involuntary? Yes. (CP p. 188) Drunkenness? No. D chose to start drinking.


12/16

Actus Reus: Crimes of omission

In general, bystanders cant be convicted of failing to stopa crime

Jones and Pope: Both cases involving harm to a child. Courtsruled that even if theres a moral duty, theres no legal duty for

bystanders to care for the child. Exceptions:

Relationship (parent-child) Duty to care under contract (nursing home, doctor)

Landowners duty


13/16

Actus Reus: Possession crimes

Two tests for knowledge of possession Model Penal Code

D must know she was in possession of an illegal substance Minority rule

Unwitting possessor can still be found liable. Honest, I didntknow it was in my bag.


14/16

Defining criminal conduct: Mens Rea

Early definition: Guilty mind. Some sort of knowledge, purpose, intent For each actus reus element, you also need the mens rea.

If the statute reads knowingly took, P needs to show D knew hewas taking something

Two old cases Regina v. Cunningham: Defined malice as wickedness and didnt

convict D of harming neighbor for ripping gas meter off wall.

Regina v. Faulkner: Sailor dropped a match when stealing rumand burned ship. Court said that because he willfully went to

steal rum, he could be convicted of burning.


15/16

Defining criminal conduct: Mens Rea

Modern definition: The state of mind required by thestatute that was necessary to have committed the crime

MPC adopts 4: Purpose Knowledge Recklessness Negligence

Well pick up here next time


16/16

Coming up

Next office hours:Wednesday, Feb. 16, 11 a.m. in the caf

Next tutoring session:Wednesday, Feb. 23, 11 a.m. room 206

E-mail:[email protected]

Semi-criminal-law-related plug:Consider working for a judge this summer. Especially in

Denver, where they hire a ton of interns.

Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)

Documents

Transcript of Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)