intro to criminal law - final exam tingz

chapters i-ix

felonies against persons

murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, and robbery

felonies against property

all forms of felony theft, robbery, arson, burglary

where does the US criminal law rest upon and what is it made of?

police power. Police power branches out to encompass all federal, state, and local governments’ executive, legislative, and judiciary acts to carry out the public’s property, health, and economy.

what do crimes and torts represent in our legal system?

both detail what we can or can’t do, and what we must do, they apply to everyone and they are backed by enforcement entities.

how do crimes differ from torts?

crime prosecutions are brought by the state or nation against individuals, convicted offenders pay money to the state or serve time in the custody of the state, and the state has to prove all elements of a crime by “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” (99%< certainty).

how do torts differ from crimes?

private parties bring tort action against other parties, defendants who lose in tort cases pay money to the plaintiff who sued, and the burden on the plaintiff is to prove responsibility by a preponderance of the evidence. (51%<)

types of damages from tort law

compensatory damages - damages recovered by tort plaintiff for their actual injuries.

punitive damages - damages recovered by tort plaintiffs to punish the defendant for their “evil behavior.”

mala in se

“inherently evil,” offenses that are crimes because they are immoral or evil in and of itself (we do not need rules to tell us that they’re wrong.) such crimes are murder, rape, robbery, etc.

mala prohibita

offenses that are crimes because a specific statute or ordinance prohibits them. mala prohibita crimes can include drinking in public, parking illegally, loitering, smoking, etc.

felonies

crimes that are punishable by death or confinement for one year up to life without parole.

misdemeanors

crimes that are punishable by fines and/or confinement in the local jail for up to one year. misdemeanors don’t have trials while felonies do.

why should there be a differentiation between felonies and misdemeanors?

felony convictions generally last after punishments as felons, in most states, cannot vote, serve in public office, work in certain occupations, and cannot be attorneys. felonies can also be grounds for divorce. misdemeanors do not have the same consequences.

state criminal & municipal codes

majority of our criminal law comes from state criminal codes created by state legislature, municipal codes can be criminal law created by city and town councils elected by city residents

model penal code (MPC)

a proposed criminal code drafted by the american law institute and used to reform criminal codes. more than forty states adopted the MPC but not entirely.

criminal liability

conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests.

how many criminal codes are there in our federal system?

52 criminal codes, one for each of the 50 states, one for the District of Columbia, and one for the U.S. criminal code.

• The U.S. govt’s power is limited to crimes specifically related to national interests like crimes committed on military or national property, crimes against federal officers, drug, weapons, organized, corporate, domestic and international terrorism related crime. Everything else is left to the states.

how do the states enforce their criminal codes and do they differ from each other?

some states require proof for various circumstances like insanity and self-defense; others don’t. several states prescribe the death penalty; others only life imprisonment. types of capital punishment looks different for each state: by electrocution, lethal injection, gas chamber, hanging, or firing squad. some enforce harsh punishments on a particular crime; others don’t at all for the same crime.

criminal punishment

it has to inflict pain or other unpleasant consequences, be prescribed in the same law that defines the crime, be administered intentionally, and be administered by the state.

retribution

• non-utilitarian, the idea that offenders can only pay for their crimes by experiencing the actual physical and psychological pain of having punishment inflicted on them.

• it assumes free will but this concept could only work when offenders knowingly and willingly committed a heinous crime, not to those who did it out of desperation or self-defense.

prevention

the idea that offenders not only should receive punishment but the crime should be reduced in future occasions.

prevention tactic i: deterrence (specific vs. general)

• specific deterrence - actual punishment to convince present offenders not to commit crimes in the future

• general deterrence - the threat of punishment in the future, to convince criminal wannabes in the general population who haven’t committed crimes from doing so.

prevention tactic ii: incapacitation

prevents crime by locking up convicted criminals, altering them surgically or executing them. this is mainly targeting the offender.

prevention tactic iii: rehabilitation

aims to prevent future crimes by changing individual offenders so that they WANT to play by the rules and support themselves for their own sake and loved ones sake.

rule of law

all individuals in society, including the government, must follow the law and it must be enforced equally and fairly.

principal of legality

no one can be convicted of, or punished for, a crime unless the law defined the crime and prescribed the punishment before the person engaged in the behavior that was defined as a crime.

where are the ex post facto laws located?

• U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9-10

what do the ban on ex post facto laws do?

• it protects private individuals by ensuring that legislatures are giving them a fair warning on what’ criminal

• It prevents legislatures from passing arbitrary and vindictive laws when they want.

• it takes away a defense that was available to a defendant when the crime was committed.

void for vagueness doctrine

• it forbids conduct and prescribes punishments in terms so uncertain that ordinary people have to guess at their meaning before they choose a course of action.

• the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution ban both federal and state governments from taking any person’s “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

• Failure to warn individuals of what the law forbids or allowing law enforcement to define arbitrarily what the law forbids denies individuals of their fundamental rights listed above.

• the purpose is to give fair notice however this does not give a solution to every human behavior that arises under these laws. Words can only do so much to ensure the public understands the law.

rule of lenity

• requires courts to resolve every ambiguity in a criminal statute in favor of the defendant.

• Courts have faced criticism over this rule because they are claimed to not follow the rule. There is the narrow lenity rules where the courts interpret ambiguous statutes in favor of defendants only in core felony cases.

the requirements for proving criminal conduct (the presumption of innocence, burden of proof)

• the Constitution limits criminal law and its punishment by how the procedures are to prove defendants’ guilt.

• Defendants enjoy the presumption of innocence from the time they’re charged with crimes until they’re convicted. They are innocent until proven guilty essentially.

• Prosecution always holds the burden of proof. Defendants do not need to cooperate or speak with the government and this silence cannot be used against them.

burden of proof

• in criminal law the prosecution holds the burden of proof which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt (<99%) Every fact of a criminal case must prove the defendant’s total guilt.

• The stakes are far higher in criminal cases given the punishments that come with a guilty verdict, in addition to the lasting effects of criminal convictions on one’s records.

affirmative defenses

defendants have the ability to put forth evidence in justification for their own actions and behaviors. This is not required but it favors the defendant, helps the jury view the case in a different light and it could alter the end result.

burden of production

it is assumed that defendants act in a sober, conscious state, therefore, putting such a burden on the defendant requires him to present enough evidence to support a fact, allowing the judge to submit the issue to the jury.

burden of persuasion

• if the defendant meets the burden of production, they also have the burden of persuasion, meaning they have to prove their defenses by a preponderance of the evidence (>50%).

• then, it is up to the prosecution to dispute that defense.

right to “freedom of speech” (1st amendment)

• first amendment: “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.”

• this protects expressive conduct, meaning actions that communicate ideas and feelings. this includes wearing arm bands to protest war, sit-ins to protest racial segregation, donating money to political candidates.

what doesn’t the 1st amendment protect?

• obscenity: material whose predominant appeal is nudity, sexual activity, or excretion

• profanity: irreverence towards sacred thigs, particularly the name of God

• libel and slander: libels are damages to reputation expressed in print, writing, pictures, or signs; slander damages reputation by spoken words

• fighting words: words that are likely to provoke the average person to retaliation and cause a “breach of the peace.”

• clear and present danger: expression that creates a clear and present danger of an evil, which legislatures have the power to prohibit.

void for overbreadth doctrine

• invalidates laws written so broadly that the fear of prosecution creates a “chilling effect” that discourages people from exercising their right to free speech.

right to “bear arms” (2nd amendment)

• second amendment: “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

• not really discussed in the SCOTUS, but District of Columbia v. Heller protected an individual’s right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, specifically self-defense in the home, independent of military service.

• That was federal territory. McDonald v. Chicago applies to the states.

what are the limitations of the 2nd Amendment?

• felons cannot possess firearms

• one cannot carry concealed weapons in public

• mentally ills persons possessing firearms

• carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.

• laws can impose conditions and qualifications on the sales of firearms

• laws can ban “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use, such as M-16 rifles and firearms used in the military.

• laws can regulate “storage of firearms to prevent accidents.”

the constitutional right to privacy

• THIS RIGHT IS NOT EXPLICITLY WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IT IS IMPLIED.

• the fundamental right to privacy originates from the 1st Amendment (right of free speech, religion, and association), 3rd Amendment (banning the quartering of soldiers in private home), 4th Amendment (securing one’s person, property, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches), 9th Amendment (“the enumeration of specific rights does not mean other rights ‘retained by the people’ do not exist”), 5th and 14th amendment (protects due process right to liberty for all individuals)

• Recent cases like Dobbs v. Jackson have undermined the right to privacy since the Court has said since it is not explicitly written in the U.S. Constitution, it does not hold any validity.

eighth amendment

• cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted.

• There are two types of punishments that are banned: barbaric punishments and punishments that are disproportionate to the crime committed.

barbaric punishments

• punishments that are no longer in use.

• e.g. burning at the stake, crucifixion, quartering, torturing, extreme form of solitary confinement.

• punishments must not involve torture or unnecessary pain, or lingering after death.

disproportionate punishments

• punishment must fit the crime

• Weems v. U.S. (1910) ruled that the punishment of fifteen years in prison at hard labor in chains and the taking of civil rights for the rest of the defendant’s life (all for falsifying a document) was cruel and unusual.

• Robinson v. California ruled that a sentence for drug addiction was disproportionate because addiction is an illness, cannot punish people for being sick.

death penalty (rules, exceptions)

• the death penalty can be administered even to crimes that are not aggravated murders like treason, espionage, large-scale drug trafficking, terrorism (this is rare though). However it cannot be administered to rape cases (Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2018).

• death for the mentally retarded murderers (there are elements that exclude mentally retard murderers from the death penalty. they only have to meet one requirement.

  • the person has substantial intellectual impairment

  • that impairment impacts the everyday life of the mentally retarded individual.

  • retardation is present at birth or during childhood.

• death/life sentence w/o parole for juvenile murderers

  • cruel and unusual, as it is “inconsistent with the evolving standards of decency in a civilized society.”

  • the death penalty on offenders under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed is unconstitutional (Roper v. Simmons, 2005). Reasoning: lack of maturity, susceptibility to outside pressures made p. disproportionate.

  • life w/o parole for juveniles who commit non-homicidal crimes is unconstitutional (Graham v. Florida, 2010), mandatory life w/o parole sentences for all juveniles are unconstitutional (Miller v. Alabama 2012).

  • all juveniles who have previously been sentenced must receive new sentencing hearings.

three-strikes laws

• intended to make sure that offenders who are convicted of a third felony get locked up for a very long time.

• problems with this concept is the fact that many strikers are generally past the age of high offending. taking care of older offenders costs money and it causes overcrowding in prisons.

criminal liability (definition, elements)

• conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individuals or public interests.

• elements of criminal liability

  • criminal act (actus reus)

  • criminal intent (mens rea)

  • concurrence

  • attendant circumstances

  • bad result (causing a criminal harm)

actus reus (principle i of liability, voluntary act)

• the physical element of a crime; a bodily movement muscular contraction (voluntary act)

• we cannot prosecute an individual’s thoughts; they are everchanging, free and it is impractical and unjust to use them to punish.

• voluntary acts do not include any form of automatism (bodily movements while unconscious)

  • mental disabilities like sleep disorders, narcolepsy, epilepsy, seizures, blackouts (unless the individual has received notice of their disability and the limitations it poses on their bodily and mental functions but decided to continue an action that would put others at risk anyway), (unless there are other voluntary factors other than mental disabilities that were the reason a crime happened, like alcohol consumption).

  • status cannot be punishable; only actions are.

• voluntary acts are willed, made in a state of consciousness.

  • even though a voluntary act is “an absolute requirement for criminal liability” it’s not necessary that every act up to the moment the crime is completed be voluntary (State v. Burrell, 1992).

omissions as criminal acts (definitions, rules)

• there are punishments for those who fail to report (provide information when you’re legally required to) or fail to intervene (not actively preventing or interrupting injuries and death to persons or damage and destruction of property).

  • this is only for when there is a legal duty to the person in danger of harm.

• legal duty

  • an attendant circumstance element

  • defined by statutory law, contracts (written AND oral), special relationships (parent-child, doctor-patient, employer-employee, landlord-tenant)

Good Samaritan doctrine vs. American bystander rule

Good Samaritan doctrine

• imposes a legal duty to help or call for help for imperiled strangers

American bystander rule

• there’s not legal duty to rescue or summon help for someone who’s in danger, even if the bystander risks nothing by helping.

actual possession

physical control of banned items on one’s person

constructive possession

items not on one’s person but in places one can control, for example, in one’s car or residence.

knowing vs. mere possession

possessors are aware of what they possess, the possession is in places that they can control

mere possession

possessors are not aware of what they possess but they have it (this cannot cause you trouble with the law)

mens rea

latin for guilty mind, it is a tricky thing to pinpoint since there are two many mental attitudes that could be the direct cause of a criminal voluntary act.

difference between motive and intent

motive = what drives the desire to harm in the first place (the real, underlying reason to harm) (this has no real relevance to criminal liability)

intent = what is behind what harm to impose (ex. punching someone to kill)

purpose

the most blameworthy mental state, meaning having a conscious object to commit or cause criminal results.

knowledge

second most blameworthy mental state, in conducting crime awareness, it is practically certain that your conduct will produce the bad result.

recklessness

third most blameworthy mental state. recklessness generally creates risks without expecting or caring if harm happens. Reckless people are not certain harm is to follow their conduct, but they know they’re creating a risk of harm, disregarding the consequences.

MPC determines recklessness in two ways

• Was the defendant aware how substantial and unjustifiable the risks that they disregarded were?

• Does the defendant’s disregard of risk amount to so “gross a deviation from the standard” that a law abiding person would observe in that situation?

negligence

least blameworthy. in contrast to recklessness, where one is conscious of creating risks, negligence is being unconscious of these risks (Koppersmith v. State, 1999).

concurrence

some mental fault has to trigger the criminal act in conduct crimes and the cause in result crimes.

• All but strict liability offenses are subject to this.

causation

holding an actor criminally accountable for the results of his conduct

factual cause

whether an actor’s conduct triggered a series of events that ended in causing death or other bodily harm, damage to property or destruction of property..

legal cause

whether it is fair to blame defendant for the harm triggered by a chain of events her action(s) set in motion?

intervening cause

an event that comes between the initial act in a sequence and the end result.

• ex. bad medical care is foreseeable so if the victim dies due to bad medical treatment, defendant would still be held liable.

superseding cause

an event that is bizarre, independent and completely unanticipated that is sufficient to override defendant responsibility.

• ex. defendant stabs victim, victim is in ambulance when a robber comes and ultimately kills victim. Robbery is an unforeseen independent crime that broke the chain.

ignorance of law

a failure of proof “defense.” not really valid because everyone is presumed to know the law. it is a legal principle stating that a person cannot escape criminal liability or justify unlawful action by claim they were unaware of the law.

mistake of fact

a failure of proof defense. whenever the mistake prevents the formation of any fault-based mental attitude, namely, purpose, knowledge, recklessness or negligence.

These defenses are raised by the defense (duh) to put forth evidence to raise reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved the mens rea required for criminal liability.

excuse defense

defendants admit what they did was wrong but claim that under the circumstances, they weren’t responsible for what they did.

justification defense

defendants admit they were responsible for their acts but claim that under the circumstances, what they did was right.

justification/excuse defenses are imperfect/perfect

imperfect defenses = defendants are guilty of lesser offenses.

• mitigating circumstances = circumstances that convince fact finders (judges or juries) that defendants don’t deserve the maximum penalty for the crime they’re convicted of.

perfect defenses = defendants are acquitted if they’re successful (w/ one exception for those who plead insanity, they’ll just get into a mental institution).

self-defense

self defense is only good if

• the necessity is great

• it exists “right now”

• it’s for prevention only

elements of self-defense

• nonaggressor - the defender didn’t start or provoke the attack

  • with one exception - withdrawal exception: if the attacker completely withdraws from the attack they provoke, they can defend themselves against an attack by their initial victim.

• necessity - defenders can use deadly force only if they reasonably believe it is necessary to repel on IMMINENT (NOT PRESENT) deadly attack

  • honest (subjective) belief is not enough to justify self-defense. there must be an objective element that your beliefs are reasonable.

• proportionality - defenders can use deadly force only if the use of non-deadly force isn’t enough to repel the attack (excessive force isn’t allowed)

• reasonability - the defender has to reasonably believe that it’s necessary to use deadly force to repel the imminent deadly attack.

retreat (what rules apply?)

stand-your-ground rule = if you didn’t start a fight, you can stand your ground and kill to defend yourself w/o retreating from any place you have the right to be

minority rule = you have to retreat from an attack if you reasonably believe that you are in danger of death or serious bodily harm and that backing off won’t unreasonably put you in danger of death or serious bodily harm.

castle exception

when attacked in your home, you have no duty to retreat and can use deadly force to fend off an unprovoked attack, but only if you reasonably believe the attack threatens death or serious bodily injury.

defense of home and property

statutes vary regarding this manner differently in some states. Most require entry into the home itself or the curtilage (the area immediately surrounding the home)

new castle laws = some states have expanded the new “castle doctrine” legislation

choices of evils

justifies the choice to commit a lesser crime to avoid the harm of greater crime. It consists of proving the defendant made the right choice. The MPC sets out the elements in three steps.

• identify the evils

• rank the evils

• choose based on the reasonable belief that the greater evil is imminent.

consent

based on the idea that competent adults voluntarily consented to crimes against themselves and knew what they were consenting to.

in most states, the law recognizes only four situations where consent justifies otherwise criminal conduct

• no serious injury results from the consensual crime

• the injury happens during a sporting event

• the conduct benefits the consenting person, such as when a patient consents to surgery

• the consent is to s*xual conduct

Defendants must prove consent was

• voluntary, not a product of force, coercion, or trickery.

• knowing, understanding what one is consenting to.

• authorized, the person consenting has the authority to give consent.

insanity defense

defendants to plead insanity are often confined in mental institutions for many years

insanity vs. competency

insanity - legal term that refers to a mental disease or defect that impairs the reason and/or will to control actions. sanity is determined by affirmative defense rules.

competency - refers to the defendant’s mental capacity to understand legal proceedings + consult consul and this is determined before court proceedings.

right-wrong test (the McNaughten rule)

two elements of the test to determine insanity

• the defendant suffered a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind.

• at the time of the act, he did not know

  • the nature and quality of the act or

  • that the act was wrong

• Insanity generally encompasses mental diseases like psychosis, paranoia, schizophrenia, etc. This does not include personality disorders like psycho/sociopathic personalities.

irresistible impulse test

only a few jurisdictions use this rule

• at the time of the crime, was the defendant afflicted with “a disease of the mind”?

• if so, did the defendant know right from wrong with respect to the act charged? if not, the law excuses the defendant.

• if the defendant did have such knowledge, the law will excuse him if two conditions occur

  • if the mental disease caused the defendant to so far lose the power to choose between right and wrong and to avoid doing the alleged act that the disease destroyed his free will and

  • if the mental disease was the sole cause of the act

diminished capacity

a failure of proof defense

• a rule of evidence that allows the defense to introduce evidence to negate specific intent in a narrow set of cases like premeditation in first degree murder

• defendant may be innocent of one crime but my be guilty of a lesser one

diminished responsibility

an excuse defense

what are the age ranges for children in regards to their mental capacities and understanding of crime

• under age 7: children had no criminal capacity

• ages 7-14: children were presumed to have no criminal capacity, but the presumption could be overcome

• over age 14: children had the same capacity as adults.

waivers to adult criminal court

judicial waiver = juvenile court judges use their discretion to transfer a juvenile to adult criminal court depending on the following criteria

• seriousness of the crime

• whether the crime was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, willful manner

• whether the crime was against a person

• the amount of evidence against the juvenile

• sophistication and maturity

• prior criminal record

• threat the juvenile poses to other juveniles.

the defense of duress

defendants use the excuse that they were forced to do what they did

elements of duress:

• nature of the threat - death threats are required to some states. Threats of “serious bodily injury” qualify in several. Others don’t specify what threats qualify.

• immediacy of the threats - harm has to be “instant.” some states say “imminent” harm is required

• Some states say defense of duress does not apply to murder. Other states say it’s a defense to all crimes.

• Level of belief regarding the threat - most states require the belief the threat is real. Others demand the threat be actually real.

the defense of intoxication

buffeted between two conflicting principles

• accountability = those who get drunk should take the consequences of their actions. Someone who gets drunk is liable for the violent consequences.

• criminal liability and punishment depend on blameworthiness

There is voluntary and involuntary intoxication, involuntary meaning defendants don’t know they’re taking intoxicants or know but are forced to take them, (applies to all substances).

the defense of entrapment

entrapment - excuse that argues government agents got people to commit crimes they wouldn’t otherwise commit (an affirmative defense).

entrapment tests (subjective vs. objective)

subjective entrapment test - the defense has to prove the government pressured the defendants to commit crime they wouldn’t have committed without the pressure.

• after the defense presents evidence of entrapment, the government can prove disposition to commit the crimes in one of these ways

  • defendant’s prior convictions for similar offenses

  • defendant’s willingness to commit similar offenses

  • defendant’s display of criminal expertise in carrying out the offense.

  • defendant’s readiness to commit the crime

objective entrapment test - if the intent originates with the government and their actions would tempt an “ordinarily law-abiding’ person to commit the crime, the court should dismiss the case.

complicity

you can be criminally liable for someone else’s conduct. it applies criminal liability to accomplices and accessories because they participate in crimes

vicarious liability

established that a party can be criminally liable because of a relationship. most common relationships are employee-employer, buyer-seller, service-provider recipient, etc.

agency theory

the idea that we’re autonomous agents with the freedom to choose our actions and become accountable for someone else’s actions when we voluntarily “join in and identity with those actions”

forfeited personal identity theory

the idea that when you choose to participate in crime, you forfeit your right to be treated as an individual; “you acts are my acts.”

accomplice

participants before and during the commission of crimes. these people are prosecuted for the crime itself.

accessories

participants after crimes are committed. these people are prosecuted for a separate, minor offense. they are considered as obstructers of justice, not felons.

Accessories used to be punished like accomplices but now not anymore.

conspiracy

an agreement to commit some other crime. the crime has not been committed but it is agreed upon.

elements of accomplice liability

actus reus = defendant took “some positive act in aid of the commission of the offense”

• ex. providing guns, supplies, or other instruments of crime, serving as a lookout, driving a getaway car, sending the victim to the principal, preventing warnings from getting to the victim.

• mere presence is not enough to satisfy the actus reus requirement or flight from a crime scene, unless the defendant has a legal duty to act.

mens rea = purpose, intent to commit the actus reus or intent to commit the crime itself.

elements of accessory liability

actus reus = ex. personally aiding the person who committed the crime.

mens rea = the accessory knew the felony was committed and they aided the felon for the purpose of hindering the prosecution of this felon.

corporate liability

a corporation can still be held criminally liable for their agents’ actions if those actions are within the scope of their authority and EVEN if the corporation did not explicitly permit the illegal conduct.

why do we punishment people who haven’t hurt anyone but were trying to?

there are two rationales: dangerous act (looks at how close defendats came to completing their crimes) and person rationale,

elements to attempt liability

actus reus = substantial steps towards completion of the crime or acts demonstrating

• physical proximity to completion of the crime OR

• indispensable element for completion of the crime OR

• unequivocally that the crime will be committed OR

• probable distance from completing the crime

mens rea = purpose, specific intent to commit the attempted crime