CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE. Yung
I. THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT AND CRIMINALIZATION.
A. RETRIBUTION.
1. One of 2 main goals of criminal punishment (Deterrence the other). A moral system of judgment. Those who do evil deserve to be punished. It is right to punish one who offends societal norms because it is wrong to violate these norms.
2. Criticisms of: Angy and vengeful emotions do not provoke moral justification for punishment. Crime often produced by offenders’ vicious societal circumstances, not by their choices. Proportionality problem; prison is the only form of punishment these days, but in the old days there were several ways to punish a criminal.
B. DETERRENCE.
1. Other main goal of punishment. We punish to prevent future criminal conduct. Forward-looking, seeks to prevent future incidents of crime (unlike Retributivism). 2 kinds of deterrence…
a. Special Deterrence. Steps taken to dissuade particular offenders from repeating crimes. Cost of criminal conduct presumably induces actor to refrain from that conduct in the future.
b. General Deterrence. Impact of criminal punishment on other persons besides the offender; the Public is deterred from committing crimes when observe the consequences. This is the kind of Deterrence that is most often referred to.
2. Criticisms of: Assumes that actors are ‘Rational Calculators’ (Certainty of Capture * Severity of Punishment = Deterrence. Extent of enforcement in play. Can offenders even do the math? If not, why bother with deterrence goal? Undeterrable).
C. Other Theories.
1. Deontology: Moral system of judgment. Underlines distinction between Retributivism and Deterrence. Focuses on judging people only on moral basis.
2. Utilitarianism: Punishment is good for the goal of preventing crime.
D. CRIMINALIZATION.
1. Decision to criminalize certain instances of conduct is made by legislatures. What do we criminalize, and why?
2. Lawrence v. Texas (US 2003). D convicted of sodomy, challenge of statute as violation of Equal Protection Clause under 14th Amendment. Holding: Invalidates law as a violation; there is a substantial liberty interest for private bedroom activity, should not subject gays to the majority’s ideas of morality. Dissent: the very essence of criminalization is enforcing the majority’s views on morality. This holding will overturn all crimes (in reality, this has not happened).
II. THE CRIMINAL ACT (ACTUS REUS).
A. THE CONDUCT REQUIREMENT.
1. 1 of 2 elements to a crime (Criminal Mind being the other). What a person has done, or failure to act (in some cases). Conduct is an essential component of any crime. Criminal liability may not be premised on a mere intention or bare desire to do wrong; does NOT include ‘thought’ crimes, or ‘Status’ offenses (ie, illegal to be homeless). Must be an ACT.
2. DOE V. CITY OF LAFAYETTE. Parks Authority bans D, a known sex offender, from entering public parks. Ban arises from D going to a park in his car, sitting in his car for half hour while watching kids, while thinking about fucking them. Issue: can a City ban D from entering parks solely as a result of his immoral thoughts?
a. Holding: NO. A person cannot be prosecuted for his thoughts alone. This is like a ‘thought’ crime (for thinking about banging little boys) or a ‘status’ crime (for being a pederast); neither of which are valid acts under the criminal act requirement. Also, plainly does not meet stalking act requirements.
b. Dissent: Reasonable remedy to protect kids, a vulnerable class of people (children). Act requirement was met here, because the City punished D for immoral thoughts + going to the park, arousal, watching kids (all acts, just not criminal acts). Here, thoughts can lead to dangerous situation; City right to proscribe conduct. (Dissent won on appeal).
c. This case; Freedom of Thought vs. Protecting against dangerous conduct.
3. Why no punishment for Thought Crimes? In our system, 3 problems; 1-Proof, 2-Evil thoughts do NOT always follow evil deeds, and 3-Substantial Liberty interest. The Act Requirement provides a clear line for citizens to avoid liability, excludes liability for status or mere thoughts.
4. REQUIREMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT; COMMON LAW.
a. Criminal liability for conduct requires that the ACT was VOLUNTARY (must result from an exercise of will). The actor must have made a CHOICE. Applies to crimes of Omission and Possession as well.
i) Distinguish between ‘exercise’ and ‘free of pressure.’ Eg, if one is given a choice between threatened harm and committing, and commit a crime, that qualifies as a ‘voluntary act,’ bc was a result of a choice (actor here still allowed a ‘duress’ defense)
b. MARTIN V. STATE. Martin was arrested by cops in his home, taken by cops to the highway, where cops cited him for public intoxication. HOLDING: Conviction overturned. The statute presupposes a voluntary appearance. Here, D was involuntarily and forcibly carried into public by cop.
c. INVOLUNTARY CONDUCT; An Absolute Defense. 4 generally accepted examples of when bodily movement is not directed by conscious mental processes:
i) Physically Coerced Movement
ii) Reflex Movements (attacked by bees while driving)
iii) Muscular Contraction, or Paralysis produced by disease
iv) Unconsciousness (acts done while sleeping, or in coma)
d. Contrast with IMPAIRED CONSCIOUSNESS. A defense on a case-by-case basis, for Jury to decide. Examples include:
i) Concussion
ii) Somnambulism (Sleep Walking).
iii) Hypoglycemia.
iv) Epilepsy; Example: Mom who had Epilepsy put baby in microwave and killed it. Resulted in reduced charge, Involuntary Manslaughter.
e. INVOLUNTARY ACT IN A VOLUNTARY COURSE OF CONDUCT; PEOPLE V. DECINA. D was driving, had epileptic seizure, killed some kids. HOLDING: Convicted of Negligent Homicide. Despite fact that his actions were held to be involuntary during seizure, D was liable for negligent and voluntary act of driving car, with knowledge he was subject to seizures. Based on MPC definition; “Conduct which includes a voluntary act.”
B. PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY.
1. In the US, criminal laws must be defined beforehand by the legislature (as opposed to judge-made law in the UK). The Principle of Legality forbids the retroactive crime definition; condemns judicial crime-creation.
2. Emphasis on fairness to defendant; effectively put on Notice that certain conduct carries criminal liability, while other conduct does not.
3. Weakness of Principle: Drug Enforcement, with new drugs (like Ecstasy, or LSD). Or, with bizarre, unanticipated crimes for which legislature did not anticipate by writing a law. As opposed to judge-made criminal laws, where have flexibility.
C. VAGUENESS DOCTRINE.
1. Constitution in play here. A Criminal Statute can be so vague, and the language unclear, that it fails to afford people proper warning of what sufficiently constitutes illegal conduct, thus preventing compliance. Must be Grammatical Vagueness.
2. Stop and Identify Laws: KOLENDER V. LAWSON. D was arrested 15 times for violating Disorderly Conduct statute that read: “If D seems aimless, guilty for disorderly conduct if D does not produce ‘credible and reliable identification.’. HOLDING: Invalidates conviction; ‘credible and reliable’ description is not subject to any objective standard. Allows for a Vague Enforcement Standard, susceptible to Arbitrary Enforcement.
3. VOID-FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE: Requires that penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Requires that Legislature establish minimum guidelines to govern law enforcement. Failure to do so allows for arbitrary/discretionary enforcement.
a. Rationale of Doctrine focuses on 2 things: 1-Actual Notice/Warning: Not actual. Constructive notice satisfied as long as law is on the books; and 2- Arbitrary and Discriminatory Enforcement.
4. PAPACHRISTOU V. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE.
5. TOLERABLE VAGUENESS; US V. PETRILLO. Federal Communications Act: Criminal to use any means to coerce or compel a broadcast licensee to employ ‘any person(s) in excess of the number of employees needed by licensee’. Some arbitrariness/fair warning problem here, however, HOLDING (SC): Good law, because even if appears vague, it is impossible to come up with even more precise language in ever-changing, fluid industry.
6. QUESTIONS OF DEGREE; NASH V. US. Sherman Anti-Trust Act; ‘undue restraint of trade.’ Kind of vague language. HOLDING: Upholds law because the language refers to a question of degree (‘undue’). It is ok to use vague words when describing the degree of something; ‘catch-all’ words.
D. ACTS BY OMISSIONS.
1. NECESSITY OF A DUTY TO ACT. A crime when failing to ACT, only when there is a duty to act. TO PROSECUTE AN ACTOR FOR A CRIME OF OMISSION, THERE MUST BE AN UNDERLYING DUTY FOR D TO ACT.
2. SOURCES OF DUTY. As follows:
a. Statute
b. Relationship (eg, parent-child)
c. Contract or Employment Responsibility. ‘Contract’=some semi-formal relationship. Eg, Lifeguard.
d. Voluntary Assumption of Responsibility (that precludes aid from others)
e. If D created the peril.
3. BILLINGSLEA V. STATE. D had his 94-yr old bed-ridden mom Hazel live with him. D refused to let niece visit Hazel. Then, 2 cops and social worker visited D, allowed them in. They found Hazel in a ton of pain, bedsores, etc. Soon died, doctor said died of injuries as a result of neglectful treatment. Charged with ‘Injury to… Elderly Person: an offense if D… negligently, by act or omission, engages in conduct that causes someone 65 or up…Serious injury.’ HOLDING: Invalidate conviction. One who ‘omits’ to perform an act does not commit an offense unless statute provides that 1-the omission is a crime, or otherwise 2-it provides that he has a duty to perform the act. In TX, a duty to act in order to avoid a conviction for Omission can only arise from statute (Minority Rule, see #2).
a. If this were decided in a Majority J’n, would probably uphold conviction bc here, D Voluntarily Assumed Responsibility for caring for Hazel (thus preventing aid from others).
4. FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUSTENANCE; REGINA V. INSTAN. Niece lived with aunt, aunt develops gangrene. People drop food off for aunt with niece, but niece gives none of it to aunt. Aunt dies. Niece charged with manslaughter. HOLDING: Uphold conviction; Voluntary Assumption of Responsibility, and possibly Contract/Employment Responsibility (caretaker).
a. JONES V. US. D was entrusted with care of 2 kids, mom agreed to pay the D for care of older kid. Kid dies of malnourishment. HOLDING: no conviction. No statute in play; No Relationship as such that imposes a duty on D here. Contract/Employment Responsibility; here, court said lack of evidence that duty extended to that particular child. Voluntary Assumption; here, we have to ‘who’ of the duty, but do not have circumstances defined (how long was duty to last?); again, no evidence of the scope of that duty… This case is at the boundary of the harshness of Crimes by Omission.
5. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE; PEOPLE V. BEARDSLEY. Man and woman in an illicit relationship, in a secluded place. She overdoses on morphine after he told her not to take any. Then he learns that his wife is on the way, so he gets his buddy to take the gf and hide her, she dies. Charged and convicted for Manslaughter at trial. HOLDING: Reverse conviction. she did this to herself; he told her not to use morphine; he gave her to someone else to ‘take care’ of her; Causation problem, no proof that omission caused the death.
a. Only modern Omission standard even possible would be Voluntary Assumption, but at what point does that kick in?
b. PEOPLE V. OLIVER. Ms Oliver takes Carlos to her home from the bar. Carlos does heroin in her bathroom. He asks for a spoon, she gives it to him. He passes out, she goes back to the bar. Later her kids find him, she tells them to take his body outta the house and behind the shed, he is later found dead. HOLDING: Duty to act here, bc putting him behind the shed amounted to a Voluntary Assumption of Responsibility (that precluded aid from others).
c. Generally difficult to define the scope of D’s duty.
6. DUTY TO RESCUE? Not in the US. Kinda like torts.
7. INTERPRETATION OF CONDUCT ELEMENTS
a. KEELER V. SUPERIOR COURT. D kicked his wife’s ass, who was pregnant with some other guy’s baby. He purposefully hit her abdomen to kill the baby. Convicted for murder of the fetus. ISSUE: whether a viable fetus is a ‘human being’ within the meaning of the murder statute. HOLDING: No, focus on legislative intent, based on 1850 draft, did not contemplate a fetus being a human being. DISSENT: goes with different understanding of the Murder statute, should include this fetus.
i) the undercurrent of this opinion was the abortion debate.
b. PEOPLE V. SOBIEK. D was president of an Investment club, a partnership. He took money from it. Charged with grand theft, D answered that you cannot steal from a partnership, old prop. rule. HOLDING: Uphold conviction. Law has changed. D says that reasoning of Keeler, about legislative intent, should guide this court. But court says that all that stuff about legislative intentwas dictum and not binding on this court.
c. METHODOLOGY OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IS NOT BINDING. Just the holdings; courts can arrive to conclusion by whatever methodology they choose, not binding.
d. STRICT CONSTRUCTION; MCBOYLE V. US. Concern for fair notice. Here, D stole airplane, charged with interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicle (lists several car-type machines, and ‘any’ self-propelled vehicle). HOLDING: Overturns conviction; theft of airplane not contemplated by drafters, look at the examples, all are car-type vehicles, no plane. No notice to D here.
E. MPC; ACTUS REUS.
1. Act Elements characterized by 3 categories:
i) Conduct. Describe acts or omissions required to commit an offense. Eg, ‘breaking and entering’ for burglary.
ii) Circumstance. External facts that must exist in order for crime to be committed. Eg, the taking ‘of personal property of another’ for Larceny.
iii) Result. Any consequences of D’s conduct incorporated into definition of offense. Eg, ‘death of another’ for Murder.
III. THE CRIMINAL MIND (MENS REA).
A. INTRODUCTION
1. 1 of 2 necessary elements of every crime. ‘Guilty Mind,’ General Moral Blameworthiness. ‘Crime=Evil Mind + Evil Doing Hand’. NOT motive, which is never an element of a crime. Without Mens Rea requirement, accidents would be prosecuted; which is not fair, goes against goals of Criminal law, to punish evil, and can’t really deter accidents.