Criminal Law Howell Outline 2016 PDF

Preview

Summary

outline of course material taught by babe howell...

Description

Unit 1 - Actus Reus Friday, September 9, 2016

2:38 PM

1. Introduction to Crim law a. Reasons for studying criminal law i. Uniquely interesting and accessible ii. Examination of statutes 1. Types of arguments about statutes a. Plain language - Ex. The defense would say that motor scooter isn't a vehicle, clearly not what the statute meant Pros would say, it says no. vehicles. Therefore any vehicle counts, no limits in the language b. Intent - what did the drafters intend, context (requires looking into statutory history) - Ex. Intent was to keep par safe, are motor scooters a danger to that? c. Purpose - end goal Ex. Purpose was to prevent further deaths, like the child who was hit by a taxi b. Sources of criminal law i. Multiple sources including: 1) Federal and state statutes (NYPL) 2) The common law (cases) 3) MPC - not the law, just a model 4) Constitutional construction c. Overview of criminal justice system i. Path for a criminal case - from most to least common 1) Arrest 2) Initial Appearance 3) Indictment 4) Arraignment 5) Partial Motions and Discovery 6) Trial 7) Appeal - sufficiency of the evidence claims, facts are interpreted in the light most favorable to the prosecution d. Fundamental principles of crim law i. Standard of proof 1) Beyond a reasonable doubt - standard in all criminal cases (from CL) ii. Burden of Proof/ presumption of innocence iii. Legality - all crimes must be defined by a statute e. Purposes of crim punishment i. Utilitarian: punishment only allowed if the positive social impact outweighs the negative Utilitarian

Retributivist

General/ specific deterrence Victim's rights

Incapacitation

Repairing society

Community safety

Eye for an eye

Rehab/reform/re-entry

Just desserts

ii. Dudley and Stephens: necessity cannot be used as an excuse to kill an innocent, court punished them to prevent the slippery slope - any heinous crime could then be claimed to be out of necessity - purpose was deterrance 2. Basic Structure of Crim Law 1. The Criminal Act – Actus Reus: the criminal conduct, the necessary attendant circumstances and the result if one is required i. Acting versus thinking 1) Thoughts alone cannot be punished 2) Dalton example - The statute convicting him included "creating" material, but this is essentially no different than writin thoughts in a journal (His counsel failed by not raising a 1st Amendment claim) ii. Voluntary act 1) In order to satisfy actus reus the act performed must be voluntary, cannot be forced into the act by another (law enforcement, see Martin). Knowingly taking action that can harm another, such as driving knowing you could have a seizure, DOES satisfy (Decina). iii. Acting versus having a status 1) Status alone cannot be punished (such as being a drug addict see Robinson), however acts accompanying the status (such as going outside while drunk see Powell) can be punished as long as it is not a necessary symptom of a status

(sleeping outside, at night see Jones) iv. Omissions - failure to act where there is a legal duty to act 1) Have a legal duty to act (your child is drowning) 2) Legal duty must be met before the merits of the case can be examined. Comes from five sources Contract

Ex. Lifeguard, babysitter

Voluntarily assume care and isolate Ex. Niece caring for sick aunt Status relationship

Ex. Parent/child, husband/wife, legal guardian

Statute/law

Ex. Good Samaritan law

Creating risk

Ex. You wash your car in the cold, creating an ice slick someone slips on

v. Be aware that there is a need to act (you see the drowning happening) vi. Be able to help/act (be able to swim yourself) 2. Void for Vagueness – Constitutional Requirement to define criminal conduct clearly i. Derived from due process of the 14th Amendment. Seeks to prevent arbitrary laws (vagrancy and loitering) which criminalize poor people and POC ii. Two prong test: 1) Provide fair notice of the conduct that is prohibited a. Vague terms ("rogues" "lewd, wanton, lascivious" "lawful purpose" from Papachristou) that would prevent a reasonable person would not be able to understand the statute or know when they are violating. b. Often goes into criminalizing status ("common thief" in Papachristou) 2) Are definite enough to prevent arbitrary enforcement - In Morales SCOTUS reinforced this, but not prong 1 a. Officers cannot have too much personal decision about when to enforce a law (i.e. deciding what is "credible and reliable" identification see Kolender, or a "satisfactory explanation" to be somewhere see Clark, what is "loitering with no apparent purpose " b. Wide net - allows police to arrest people they deem suspicious without further reasoning, invites racial profiling

3.

Unit 2 - Mens Rea, Causation, Concurrence Wednesday, October 5, 2016

12:43 PM

3. The culpable mind - Mens Rea a. Purpose i. Utilitarian: deterrence only makes sense when someone has a guilty mind, you cannot prevent accidents with the fear of criminal punishment ii. Retributivist: if there is not culpable mental state then there is no moral blameworthiness b. Standards i. Generally: Satisfying a higher mens rea also satisfies all the lower levels of mens rea (CL and MPC, not explicit in NYPL) ii. Minimum mens rea at common law is "recklessness" 1) Regina - He had a culpable mind to steal the gas meter, but didn't intend to harm the mother in law. His behavior had to constitute recklessness, consciously disregarding the danger, in order to be found guilty. iii. Levels of Mens Rea: CL

MPC

NYPL

• Minimum is "reckless" • Words used in statutes such as: willfull, premeditated, malicious

•Purposely = highest level • "conscious objective to engage or cause the effect" •Knowingly • "aware his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist" • "Practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result" • Willfull blindness - satisfied by knowledge of high probability, unless they actually believe it doesn't exist ○ Watering down of mens rea • Recklessly = minimum where no mens is stated • "consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk" • "disregard of risk involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct" • Negligently • "should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk" • "failure to perceive risk involves a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person"

•Intentionally = highest level • "concious objective to cause such result or to engage in such conduct" •Knowingly • "aware his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist" •Recklessly • "consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk" • "disregard of risk involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct" •Criminal negligence • "failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk" • "failure to perceive risk gross deviation from the standard of conduct"

When one and only one of such terms appears, it is presumed to apply to every element of the offense unless an intent to limit its application clearly appears

Applies to all material elements of a statute unless "a contrary purpose presents itself"

iv. Definitions 1) "Gross deviation" - based on what is considered normal by society. a) Ex. If a parent lets a child go extreme snowboarding, in some areas that may be considered completely normal, where in others it would be seen as negligent b) Material elements i) MPC definition: element that does not relate exclusively of the statute of limitations, jurisdiction, venue, or to any other matter similarly unconnected with the harm or evil, incident or conduct sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense, or the existence of a justification or excuse for such conduct (Mens rea only applies to material elements, such as the actus reus and attendant circumstances) v. Examples 1) Recklessness - from practice test "The man uses his hunting knife to cut the symbol into the upper arm of new initiates to the gang. He knows that one gang member developed an infection and died from it, but he assumes

that new members won’t likely get infected" c. Proving Intent i. Can be inferred from acts, statement and surrounding circumstances, aka circumstantial evidence 1) from Fugate: "intent to kill may be presumed where the natural and probably consequences of a wrongful act is to produce death, and such intent may be deduced from all the surrounding circumstances, including the instrument used to produce death and the manner of inflicting a fatal wound" ii. Statutory Interpretation 1) Is the statute ambiguous? a. CL: a) Rule of lenity - if a statute is vague, go to the reading the benefits the defendant i) Not applied by the court in Yermian ii) Applied in Morissette, the fact that it was government property was a material element of crime and the "knowingly" in the statute was applied b) Mens rea must be proven when that element will cause the defendant to be guilty of a more serious crime or subject to more severe punishment (Ryan) i) NYPL adapted post Ryan to make weight of drugs a strict liability element. b. Both MPC and NYPL have rules that say when a statute is vague it should be interpreted in a way that reinforces th penal purposes of that code: i) MPC: "it shall be interpreted to further the general purposes stated in this section and the special purposes of the particular provision involved" ii) NYPL: "provisions herein must be construed according to the fair import of their terms to promote justice and effect the objects of this law" 2) Only one mens rea term in a statute with many criminal elements? a. MPC: One mens rea term --> applies to all material elements unless "a contrary purpose presents itself" b. NYPL: One and only one term --> applies to all elements "an intent to limit its application clearly appears" d. Transferred intent i. CL and NYPL: When a defendant intends to harm one victim, but then unintentionally harms a second victim instead. In this case, the defendant's intent transfers from the intended victim to the actual victim and can be used to satisfy the mens rea element of the crime that the defendant is being charged with. a. Your intend to kill X but instead kill Y - you're intent was to kill a human, and applies to Y 1) MPC: In addition to common law rules, when the intended crime is worse than the result (X intends to kill Y, but ends up only physically harming Y) or when the actual result involves the same kind of injury and it is not too accidental (X intend to kill Y and shoots into a crowd, injuring Z) e. Strict Liability - exception to general requirement of mental culpability i. Typically applies to violations and administrative regulations where: 1) Purpose = general deterrence to promote public welfare 2) Penalties are relatively small (fines, etc.) 3) No great damage to the offenders reputations (won't cause them to have a criminal record) ii. NO GLOSS - mental disability does not matter when a crime is one of strict liability 1) MPC/NYPL - legislators must be explicit when they make a crime or an element of a crime SL a. Exceptions where strict liability applies to more serious crimes a) In NYPL - age of child and weight of drugs b) In CL - age of child, jurisdiction (lying to fed government) 2) CL - age of the victim in statutory rape cases is typically strict (Garnette) a. Legislative intent and plain language used to determine iii. Chart: CL

MPC

• Determined by the plain language and intent of the legislature •Weight of drugs when it causes a more serious punishment - NOT SL •Age of a child in statutory rape SL unless leg intended otherwise

•Only for violations that require paying a • Typically for violations that require fine paying a fine •If there is no MR listed in the statute, • Exceptions: age of child and minimum of recklessness applies to all weight of drugs material elements of the crime • Exception: statutory rape where child is under 10 (found in Garnette)

NYPL

f. Defenses i. Mistake of fact - when is it a defense to mens rea? 1) Chart: CL

MPC

NYPL

Yes - defense in relation to MR Specific intent - unreasonable defenses allowed General intent - only reasonable defenses allowed

Yes - defense if it negates MR Yes - defense if it negates MR Unreasonable defenses allowed Unreasonable defenses allowed

1) Affirmative defense: burden of proof on defendant, preponderance of the evidence a. Generally jury should rely on what defendant actually believed, not what an objective person would believe (Gudz a reasonable person may have known he had the wrong woman, but there was evidence he truly believed it was her) a) Exception - specific intent statutes 2) Rule: Applies when the mistake negates the mens rea of the act, can apply to any level of MR ( Rypinski) ii. Mistake of law 1) General rule: NOT a defense against mens rea 2) Exceptions a. Tax law (Cheek) b. When statute requires knowledge of the law (unlawfully using food stamps - Laporota) c. MPC: when statute was not published yet, not available for defendant to know about d. Executive Estoppel a) CL and MPC: Relying on an official statement on the law that is later found to be erroneous b) NYPL: Reasonable reliance on an official statement 3) Chart:

CL

MPC

NYPL

Mistake of Law

NO Yes - 2.04(1)(a) if it negates MR • Exceptions: • tax law (Cheek) • Also 2.04(3) if the • When the statute requires statute was not knowledge of the law "unlawfully published yet or could using food stamps in a manner not not have been allowed by regulations" reasonably known by defendant AFFRIMATIVE DEFENSE

NO

Mistake of Law w/ executive estoppel

Yes - ONLY when statement law has been Yes - only when the official found to erroneous (Marrero) statement they rely on comes from an interpreter or administrator of the law (police/lawyers don’t count) ONLY when statement law has been found to erroneous AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Yes - only when the official statement they rely on comes from an interpreter or administrator of the law (police/ lawyers don’t count)...