criminal law tutoring slides 2 (2 of 6)
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
1/16
Criminal Law Tutoring
Session 2Feb. 9, 2011
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
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
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
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
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
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?
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
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)
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
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
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
7/16
Defining criminal conduct: Legality
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.
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
8/16
Defining criminal conduct: Legality
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.
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
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.
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
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
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
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.
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
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
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
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.
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
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.
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
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
-
7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 2 (2 of 6)
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.