Criminal Law Outline PDF

Preview

Summary

Outline for 1L Criminal Law...

Description

Criminal Law Outline 1

Stages of a Criminal Case I. II. III.

Complaint/Investigation – may happen all at once, may take years Arrest (Plea bargaining is Arrest thru Sentencing) Arraignment (formal charging) a. Δ gets to hear for the first time what the prosecutor thinks the charges should be & can say guilty or not guilty b. Set bail - where should Δ be during this process IV. Indictment or Preliminary Hearing a. Grand jury; not full trial; some witnesses; only need some evidence to continue; jurors can ask questions; if indicted – community has agreed to prosecute V. Pre-Trial Motions a. Lawyers going back & forth VI. Trial VII. Sentencing VIII. Appeals a. Only Δ gets to appeal, not prosecutors. Trial judges hate being reversed b. Examples: i. Over whether evidence should have been excluded/included ii. Over whether jury instructions were correct iii. Over whether there was sufficient evidence to convict 1. State v. Owens – a conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence

Retributivism & Utilitarianism I.

Utilitarian Analysis – Jeremy Bentham a. What is a crime? i. If the act causes net harm then it is a crime (social harm) b. Should we punish? i. If punishment would prevent future harm then we must punish. If there is no potential for future harm then never punish ii. There must be a risk of future commission of crimes c. Assumptions required: i. There will be future harm (good reason to believe) ii. If there is little chance of future harm → won’t impose punishment (their only justification for punishment is preventing future harm. If that is not possible then no punishment)

Criminal Law Outline 2

II.

d. How can one person’s punishment prevent future crime? i. Specific deterrence – stop the same person from committing the same crime ii. General deterrence – don’t commit crime because don’t want to do the jail time/don’t want the punishment iii. Incapacitation – stop them from committing crime by purring them in jail iv. Rehabilitation – want to teach them, help them understand what is wrong 1. Different from specific deterrence bc getting them to agree with our values, not by scaring them with the threat of punishment for crime e. Proportionality principles in utilitarianism i. Punishments should be greater than the profits derived from committing the crime ii. The greater the profits → the greater the harms → the greater the punishment iii. More aggravated versions of a crime (the greater the harm) should have greater punishment in order to encourage minimization of the crime iv. Punishment should never be excessive Retributivist Analysis – Immanuel Kant a. General Information i. Came after utilitarianism. They were a reaction to utilitarianism ii. They believe it is okay that utilitarians want less crime, BUT if a utilitarian could see there would be 0 reductions (no future harm) in crime they would give no punishment. Retributivists hated that idea & believed that preventing future crime isn’t the only reason to punish, & that those people deserve to be punished bc they committed a crime. b. What is a crime? i. Retributivism looks at suspect, not the victim. ii. If the suspect is morally culpable/exercised their free will & made a condemnable choice then it is a crime c. Who is a criminal? i. Is that person morally culpable? ii. Did they exercise their free will & make a condemnable choice? iii. If the individual that makes the condemnable choice, makes it with fully formed intent & a mature level of intent then they are a criminal d. Should we punish? i. Retributivism is about choice – if they make a bad choice, then punish them

Criminal Law Outline 3

III.

ii. All guilty persons should be punished, not because their punishment will reduce future crime, but rather because they need to be/deserve to be punished e. Types of retributivism i. Positive – must punish every guilty person always 1. Assaultive – deters private vengeance & sends symbolic message of general deterrence 2. Protective – criminals have right to be punished, restoring moral equilibrium between criminal & greater society 3. Victim-oriented – reaffirms the value of the victim & restores equilibrium between criminal & victim ii. Negative – must never punish any innocent person 1. If you doubt a person’s guilt then never punish 2. Even if you could get 100,000 fewer rapes, don’t punish an innocent person 3. Don’t use innocent people as a tool to prevent future harm f. Principles of proportionality i. Consider the internal – moral culpability of the wrongdoer 1. Must be proportional when looking at the circumstances & choices made by wrongdoer relative to all other wrongdoers ii. Consider the external – social harm caused by the crime 1. Must be proportional when looking at the harm caused by this act relative to all other criminal acts Case Law – Utilitarianism & Retributivism a. People v. Du – black girl v. store owner. Charged with voluntary manslaughter, which carries a sentence of 0-10 years i. Sentencing – after Du found guilty, the judge only gave her probation, she considered the following sentencing goals: 1. Utilitarian – protect society a. Not a great likelihood that Du would commit more crimes – she’s not a dangerous person (doesn’t think about deterrence) 2. Retributivist – punish the Δ for crime a. Even though the Δ committed a crime she had suffered 40 shop lifts per week. She was a victim herself – her condemnable action wasn’t as bad because of what she had experienced 3. Utilitarian – encourage Δ to lead a law abiding life 4. Utilitarian – deter others

Criminal Law Outline 4

5. Utilitarian – isolate the Δ so she can’t commit other crimes 6. Secure restitution for the victim 7. Seek uniformity in sentencing

Proportional Punishment I.

II. III.

IV.

Constitutional Text – 8th Amendment a. “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel & unusual punishment inflicted.” i. About proportionality – captures both utilitarian & retributivist thoughts Death penalty cases – in death penalty cases, there is a lot of scrutiny on the punishment Coker v. Georgia a. A punishment is excessive & unconstitutional if i. Makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment & hence is nothing more then the purposeless & needless imposition of pain & suffering; OR ii. Is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime b. Whether the death penalty can be constitutionally imposed for the raping of an adult woman i. Holding – no ii. The court considers: 1. Other jurisdictions – no other states use the death penalty for rape 2. History – only 10% of rape cases in Georgia’s history have resulted in a death penalty recommendation 3. External – the perpetrator didn’t kill so we shouldn’t kill him Non-death penalty cases – the proportionality principles from the 8th amendment do apply to non-death penalty cases a. Does not require strict proportionality between the crime & the sentence – rather, it only forbids extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime b. General Rule: i. If the gravity of the offense is disproportionate to the harshness of the penalty, then  threshold (you do not get to 1. & 2. Unless you satisfy i.) 1. If the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same juris are disproportionate; AND 2. If the sentences imposed for the same crime in other juris are disproportionate

Criminal Law Outline 5

3. THEN the punishment is excessive/not proportional & unconstitutional c. Ewing v. California i. Ewing arrested for stealing golf clubs worth $1,200. Ewing had prior convictions, including 3 burglaries & a robbery ii. Issue – whether the 8th amendment prohibits CA from sentencing a repeat felon to a prison term of 25 to life under the state’s 3 strike law? iii. Holding – no, 8th does not prohibit 25-life for serious habitual offenders 1. Ewing’s punishment is not grossly disproportionate & it is not cruel & unusual punishment 2. Ewing’s sentence is justified by the state’s public safety interest in incapacitating & deterring recidivist felons, & amply supported by his own long, serious criminal record

Statutory Interpretation I.

II.

Role of the judiciary: a. To interpret & apply criminal statutes b. To guard against unconstitutional criminal statutes i. They are a check against the legislature when they write unconstitutional statutes Principle of Legality a. General Rule – a law has to exist first in order for someone to violate it i. All retroactively applied laws are unconstitutional 1. Cannot expand a term/phrase to include something unforeseeable a. Court could not expand a statute using the phrase “human being” to include unborn fetuses (Keeler v. Superior Court) i. Legislature did not intend the meaning & to apply it to Keeler, the court would exceed its judicial power & deny Keeler due process b. A person may not be convicted & punished unless her conduct was previously defined as criminal c. Criminal statutes should be understandable to ordinary law abiding persons d. Criminal statutes should be crafted so that they don’t delegate basic policy matters to policemen, judges, & juries for resolution on an ad hoc (when necessary/needed) & subjective basis e. Judicial interpretation of ambiguous statutes should be biased in favor of the accused – lenity doctrine

Criminal Law Outline 6

III.

IV.

V.

i. NYPL §5.00 – no rule of lenity – use fair import of terms (textual) & effect of law (purposivist) ii. MPC §1.02(3) – no rule of lenity – use fair import of terms (textual) & purposes of code/provision f. No crime without law, no punishment without law Void for Vagueness a. To provide for fair notice (legality) b. To avoid discrimination by police & other state actors c. 2 constitutional claims based on void for vagueness principle i. Must be understandable to reasonable law-abiding persons (Lack of Fair Notice) ii. Must not delegate wholesale authority from legislature to police, courts, or juries (Arbitrary Discretion) d. 3 harms that are the result of vague statutes: i. Fair notice – you can’t be a law abiding person if you don’t know the law ii. Arbitrary enforcement – if law enforcement doesn’t know the law, then they replace the ambiguity with their own interpretation/definitions iii. Civilian overcompensation – civilians don’t know what is legal/not legal so they overcompensate to be safe & then they don’t do things that are lawful – basically they avoid way more than they actually need to legally Keeler v. Superior Court (Legality) a. Whether fetus is considered a “human being” under the murder statute – “act of unlawfully killing human being with malice aforethought” b. Court looked to legislative intent i. Looked back to when legislature first wrote the murder statute & tried to determine what human being meant at that time & the sources the legislature might have used at that time & the common law sources c. Court determined that the statute defined human being as individuals that had been born & so the fetus, being unborn, did not count. i. Court was not happy with this result but they said they cannot redefine human being because that is the legislature’s job d. Legality doctrine – it was unforeseeable that the phrase human being encompassed fetuses so if the court were to expand the law to include fetuses that would violate the legality doctrine/prohibition against ex-post facto laws Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles (Vagueness) a. Law made it illegal to use your car as living quarters either overnight, day-by-day or otherwise b. Holding – law is too vague & is thus unconstitutional

Criminal Law Outline 7

VI.

c. There was very little that was necessary in order to be found guilty of the crime & thus the cops were deciding who was in violation & they were unfairly targeting the homeless d. Rule – a statute fails due process if it is so vague & standarless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits e. Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law if: i. It fails to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits ii. Authorizes & even encourages arbitrary & discriminatory enforcement Statutory interpretation: a. Interpreting Case Law v. Statutes i. Case law – flexible ii. Statutes – rigid; the exclusive statement of the law b. Theory v. Tools i. Theory – the approach to interpreting statutes, the vision of the separation of powers ii. Tools – the strategies, rules, canons, & helpful assistants in interpreting statutes c. Statutory Interpretation Theories i. Textualism – ask “what does the text say?” otherwise, resort to intent ii. Purposivism (intent of the statute) – consider the overall goal/agenda of the statute. Go back to when the statute was adopted & think about what problem the legislature was trying to solve – the overall big goal iii. Intentionalism (intent of the word or phrase) – NOT asking what prob the legislature was trying to solve – rather it is asking what did the legislature intend for this word/phrase to mean d. Statutory Interpretation Tools i. Textual canons 1. Ordinary usage or ordinary meaning rule 2. Dictionary definitions 3. Grammar & punctuation 4. Avoid rendering words superfluous 5. List Rules a. It is known by its associates b. Of the same kind c. Inclusion of one thing suggests the exclusion of other things ii. Extrinsic/reference canons 1. Legislative history

Criminal Law Outline 8

2. Common law understandings 3. Other statutes & their interpretations a. Avoid rendering other statutes superfluous b. Look to other statutes that use the same terminology c. Other statutes may have borrowed templates/models d. Statutes passed at the same time as the one in question 4. Administrative agency interpretations iii. Substantive canons 1. General information – they relate to the substance of the statute in front of you 2. Rule of lenity a. Common law – in construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the Δ (presumption of innocence) b. MPC – does not accept or reject lenity c. NYPL §5.00 – rejects lenity. Rather use broad interpretations, not strict constructions. Fair imports of the terms to promote justice (plain meaning) & objects of the law (legislative intent) 3. Anti-trust & civil laws are given liberal interpretations 4. Presumptions – e.g. presumption that congress does not want to violate international law 5. Clear statement rules – large policy changes require clarity in legislation a. E.g. if congress wants Native Americans to be included in the laws of states they would have to be very clear e. State v. Miles – Δ convicted from trafficking illegal drugs, issue was if the trial court erred in informing the jury that the state did not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Miles knew the drug he possessed was oxycodone i. It is commonplace that diff elements of the same offense can require diff mental states ii. Court finds that legislature did not intent knowingly to require the state to prove a Δ knew the specific drug – Δ did not need to know the precise identity of the drug

Elements of a Crime I.

With the exception of strict liability crimes, every statute defining a substantive criminal offense proscribes a particular mens rea & actus reus that must be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt in order for criminal liability to result

Criminal Law Outline 9

Actus Reus - Is to be interpreted as the comprehensive notion of the act, harm, & its connecting link, causation o With actus expressing the voluntary physical movement in the sense of conduct o & reus expressing the fact that this conduct results in certain proscribed harm – that it causes an injury to the legal interest protected in that crime - The physical/external component of a crime - The criminal act must be a voluntary, affirmative act causing a criminally proscribed result. - The act required may also be satisfied by an omission or failure to act under the circumstances imposing a legal duty to act - A bad thought standing alone cannot result in criminal liability - Actus reus has no universally accepted definition I. Voluntary Act a. Voluntary does NOT mean intentional! b. A bodily movement, simply a muscular contraction; excluding reflexive actions, spasms, epileptic seizure, & bodily movements while actor is unconscious/asleep c. Refers to an act that caused the social harm d. Elements of a voluntary act: i. Physical act 1. In general, a criminal act must be a physical act 2. A bad though standing alone cannot result in criminal liability 3. MPC §2.01(1-2) a. Bodily movement product of effort or determination of actor b. The following are not voluntary acts within meaning of this §: i. A reflex or convulsion ii. A bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep iii. Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion iv. A bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination 4. NYPL - §15.00(1) – act means a bodily movement 5. Wrinkles: a. Time Framing: i. The prosecution need not show that every act, or even that the last act, was voluntary to establish criminal liability; it is sufficient that the Δ’s conduct included a voluntary act

Criminal Law Outline 10

ii. Broad v. Narrow Time Framing 1. Broad – if the court wants to convict Δ who acted involuntarily at some point during the commission of the offense, it will construct a time frame broad enough to include some remote, but voluntary act a. Court convicted man for manslaughter when he crashed his car into children bc he had an epileptic seizure. The epileptic seizure is an involuntary act, but the court said that his voluntary act was the fact that he decided to drive in the first place – likely bc they wanted to convict him bc there was dead kids as a result (People v. Decina) 2. Narrow – if the court does not want to convict a Δ, then they will only look at the involuntary act that occurred during the commission of the offense. a. Court did not convict a man for being drunk in public when get got drunk at his home & police came & took him to a public highway. Court considered him being in a public space involuntary bc he was taken there by the police & the court did not look back to his earlier voluntary act of getting drunk in the 1st place (Martin v. State) 6. Omissions a. When an actor has a duty to act but fails to do so then it may make the actor criminally liable. There are exceptional circumstances where we allow omission – we allow them to be considered acts when there’s a duty – where the law draws a line saying omissions are voluntary acts b. NYPL §15.00(3) – Omission means a failure to perform an act as to which a duty of performance is imposed by law c. MPC §2.01(3) i. Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless: 1. The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; OR

Criminal Law Outline 11

2. A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law d. Failure to act may constitute a breach of legal duty in 5 situations (Jones v. US) i. Where a statute imposes a duty – e.g. duty to pay taxes ii. Where there is a special relationship – e.g. parents & children, spouses iii. Where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another – e.g. lifeguards iv. Where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another & so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid v. When a person creates a risk of harm to another – e.g. a driver by negligence or innocently strikes & injures a pedestrian → the driver has legal duty to ensure than the victim gets medical care 1. If driver fails to assist, he may be held criminally responsible for additional harm like the pedestrian’s death e. Billingslea (Omission) – man does not take care of his elderly mother who is living with him & she ends up getti...