Powers Law Firm PA Home
Your life. Your future.
Your lawyers.
Criminal Law - 2021 Outline - Part 1
Download the PDF version of this outline
Introduction- What Is A Crime? - Hart v. Devlin (2 sides of the spectrum)
- H.L.A. Hart - We must look at the harm to others, not the views of the majority, to determine what is right or wrong.
- Largely predominant belief after Lawrence v. Texas
- Lord Devlin: Majority moral beliefs reign= we should determine what is criminal by what offends the moral majority.
- H.L.A. Hart - We must look at the harm to others, not the views of the majority, to determine what is right or wrong.
- FOUR ELEMENTS OF A CRIME
- Act
- Mental State: intentionally/purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, negligently
- Causation
- Harm/Suffering (to society)
- American Law Institute and the Model Penal Code
- MPC created in 1962
- Creates a guideline for statutes; however, it is not de facto law; just a template
- Difference between US and Other Countries
- Dissenting opinions
- American Bystander Rule- No duty to intervene
- Common Issues on appeal
- Law wrong in indictment, in conducting jury selection, etc.
- Procedure wrong, such as closing argument
- Judge improperly limiting evidence
- Bad jury instruction
- Insufficient evidence
1ST Amendment: Freedom of Speech: Gov’t can limit time/place/manner but not content.
4th Amendment: No illegally obtained evidence
5th & 14th Amendment: Due Process Clause: Proper Notice Needed, No vagueness in statutes (must be interpreted w/ certainty), Equal application, Statute must be constitutional.
8th Amendment: cruel and unusual punishment.
1st Amendment- Commonwealth v. Jones - KY 1994
- Woman called cop “Nazi pig motherfucker” - is arrested for disorderly conduct, making “unreasonable noise”
- ∆ makes 1st amendment argument instead of 14th (which she should have) “unreasonable noise” is unduly vague + she hints at selective prosecution
- DP v. State - Fl Ct App 1997 Do minors have fewer rights?
- Charged with being in possession of spray paint can
- ∆ argues infringement of due process (14th Amendment): state says its ok to afford less due process to minors (intent can be assumed from anecdotal evidence) bc they are protecting them.
- ∆ pleads Inherently Innocent Items doctrine: Can’t be charged w/ possession of legal item: State says if its prohibited for that age, then you can assume intent.
- Lawrence v. TX - SCOTUS 2003 Rejecting Devlin’s Morality view
- Monumental Case- made anti-sodomy statutes unlawful
- Overall Rule: Governing majority’s views are not sufficient for upholding a law prohibiting an act which they find to be immoral (the law is unconstitutional)
- Denying Devlin’s opinion of the law
- Overrules Bowers, which held that anti-sodomy statutes aren’t unconstitutional
- Jones v. City of Los Angeles 9th Cir. 2006 Cruel + Unusual to Punish Status?
- Several homeless ppl arrested for sleeping on street ( LA statute)
- Rule: It is unconstitutional to prohibit an involuntary act or condition is it is an unavoidable consequence of one’s status or being
- Uses 2 cases Powell and Robinson
- Robinson: You cannot criminalize being an addict
- Powell: You can criminalize public drunkenness (an act, not condition)
- Limited holding: so long as more homeless > available beds: can’t be illegal
Voluntary act OR an omission where one has duty to act
Gov’t must prove (1) ∆ consciously aware of actions (2) ∆ is voluntarily acting
(so unconsciousness and acting under compulsion of others = failure of proof)
Problems that come up w/ Act Req:
- Did the ∆ Act?
- What kind of act?
- Is there a failure to act?
Cases:
- State v. Hinkle - Unconsciousness
- ∆ kills two others in a car crash; undiagnosed brain disorder; charged w/ manslaughter
- Rule: When dealing with a claim of unconsciousness, state must prove that the actions were conscious and voluntary
- Admission of evidence: evidence of alc consumption prejudicial (bc BAC=0)
- Note: unconsciousness can be affirmative defense or F.O.P. (as it is here)
- Commonwealth v. Pestinakas - Act Req can be satisfied by OMISSION.
- Can person be prosecuted for murder for failure to perform a contract (with hospital staff) to provide food and medical care for another?
- Yes- the omission of an act fulfills the voluntary act requirement so long as the mens rea is satisfied
- Court found that it was, based on them withdrawing money from his acct
Purposefully (Subjective Standard) - The person knows doing X will create Y outcome; and they want Y outcome
- Knowledge + a desire for the intended outcome (goal-oriented behavior)
- Highest state of culpability
- State v. Smith - NJ 1993 Impossibility a defense?
- HIV infected inmate biting guard charged with attempted murder
- Issue: Does it matter whether ∆’s actions could not, in fact, result in death?
- Rule: For a charge of attempted murder, only need proof ∆ acting intentionally (thought it could kill) regardless of impossiblity
- Established intent through prior words, actions
Knowingly (Subjective Standard)
- Conscious act + awareness that the result is practically certain.
- Ex: Arson (knowingly burns down structure)
- Fabritz v. Traurig - 4th Cir. 1978 : Knowledge requirement
- Child abuse case: did mom know she was risking the child’s life by not seeking medical care? Court determines NO.
- Holding: no evidentiary basis for proving the knowledge requirement
- Dissent: knowledge can be inferred from her prior comments (“Tommy hits hard”, saying she hadn’t gone to dr. bc of bruises)
- HABEAS CORPUS: Civil action against the jailor/warden/governor; alleging unlawful detention or imprisonment
- Flores-Figueroa v. US - What parts of statute does mental state adhere to?
- identify theft bc his fake SSN belonged to others (claims he didn’t know)
- Issue: Statute’s language tricky = does knowingly apply just to having fake documents, or knowing the #s belonged to a real person
- Rule: Yes, statute req’s that “knowingly” apply to #s belonging to real person
- Rehaif v. United States -
- Illegal immigrant possessing gun: mens rea of “knowingly” applies to what? the possession of the gun, the illegal status, or the law.
- Rule: Knowledge applies to all elements of the crime: he had to KNOW that his status was illegal (which state didn’t prove) (there is a scienter requirement)
- SCIENTER: Knowledge of the wrongness/criminal nature of the offense.
- Compare to: US v. International Minerals and Chemicals Corp.: Risky business
- Company illegally shipping corrosive materials: claimed unaware of crime; the Supreme Ct said only knowledge req only applied to the fact that they were shipping dangerous materials
- W/ high risk activities = no scienter requirement (they don’t need to know its a crime, just have to know that they are doing it
Most difficult mens rea to establish- Conscious disregard (S) of substantial and unjustifiable risk (O)
- Hardest thing to prove is the subjective = that THEY knew
- Must be a gross deviation from normal standard of conduct
- Commonwealth v. Welansky - Mass. 1944
- Cocoanut Grove nightclub fire; several code violations, owner not present
- Charged w/ IVMS (Involuntary Manslaughter): Can he be “reckless when not present?
- His control, not presence, makes him responsible
- Commonwealth v. Huggins - PA 2003
- Bus driver crashed after falling asleep at the wheel; convicted of IVMS: Guilty
- speeding, driving tired w/ children, overloading van by 9 people
- Rule: conscious disregard for human life + acts differently from the standard of conduct that a normal person would exercise, then ∆ G for IVMS.
- When they didn’t know, but should have known
- Gross deviation from reasonable standard of care
- Objective standard bc its basically the reasonable person standard.
- If knowledge of that fact is element of the crime: then it is a failure of proof
- Ex.: Larceny “Whoever intentionally takes property, knowing it belongs to someone else” : ∆ NG if he thought he owned it
- If knowledge not an element: it’s affirmative defense– special jury instruction needed
- Ex: Arson: “Whoever knowingly burns structure and does so w/o permission”
- If you burn something, but think you own it: all elements of the crime are met; however, you can raise the mistake of fact as a defense, so jury instructed
- Policy reason? You made a reasonable mistake: as matter of public policy, no goal of criminal justice system satisfied by punishing you
Cases:
- California v. Russell - Cal Ct. Appeals 2006 Mistake of Fact
- “Abandoned” Motorcycle taken by homeless man; undertook reasonable inquiry trying to find old owner
- Issue: Could he still be found liable for receiving stolen property?
- Court reverses conviction on grounds that he should have received a jury instruction on mistake of fact - PER MARCUS, this is WRONG
- Knowledge required by statute: thus, state failed to make its case, this is a failure of proof. No jury instruction was needed.
- Normally, “ignorance of the law is no defense”
- If knowledge of the law is required by the statute - mistake of law is a failure of proof
- If it isn’t - mistake of law if an affirmative defense
- Successful depending on if ∆ acted with reliance upon an official statement of law given by a public officer (not his lawyers)
- However, if it is a risky activity, no notice of the statute needed.
Cases:
- United States v. Mancuso - 2d Cir 1970 Mistake of Law
- Statute: if narcotics offense = alert customs upon entering/leaving the country (wasn’t posted in noticeable places, advertised) No req to know of statute
- Rule: if people don’t know about law; no useful end in punishing “violators”
- Note: Court is rewriting the statute to have a scienter requirement (Knowledge of the existence of a law): COURTS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO DO THIS.
“One man ought never to be dealt with merely as a means subservient to the purposes of another” - Kant
Goals of Criminal Law
| 3 ways to sentence
|
Mandatory Sentencing (became big 20-25y.a.)
| 4 kinds of incarceration:
|
Notes
- Our prison population = 2.1 million
- Cost of incarceration: 30k-70k per year
- Alternative Sentencing: 6 types: Restitution/Fines, Community Service, Electronic monitoring, Drug/Alcohol treatment, Job-training/re-entry, suspended sentences
- Big movement towards alternative courts (drug courts etc): are cheaper also
- State v. Federal Sentencing
- Vast majority of criminal cases are state
- Federal cases: crime crossing state lines, violations of federal statutes (Ex. white collar crimes), (Also, Conspiracy usually fed), using interstate means of communication (mail, phone, etc.)
- Sentencing: Concurrent v. Consecutive
- Concurrent sentence= can be served at same time
- Consecutive= must be served one after another
Cases
- United States v. Bergman - S.D.NY 1976 - Lighter sentences for white collar crime
- Sentencing memorandum: Bergman was rabbi; guilty of fraud (state + fed)
- Judge explaining why only 4 mo.: rehabilitation doesn’t work, don’t need to keep him off street, deterrence isn’t a worry bc he won’t do it again
- But what about overall deterrence?
- United States v. Jackson: 7th Cir 1987: Hefty time w/ Sentencing Guidelines
- Another sentencing memorandum: Bank robber, released and robs bank 30 minutes later; up for life imprisonment
- Posner mentions doubt of efficacy of jailing Jackson for life: claims he prefers ~ 20y: but he must defer to the legislature that allows this.
- He does mention that Jackson can apply for clemency later
- Clemency ≠ pardon : Usually acknowledges guilt
- Clemency can reduce a sentence; grant reprieve or commutation of sentence
- Pardon will make the crime go away
