criminal law pt 1

Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville

• was a crime to be a vagrant

• too vague supreme court found invalid

• punished him for status of vagrancy

City of Chicago v. Morales

• crime to be a gang member + loitering

• invalid

• what is too long to be considered loitering?

• vague

• cannot punish them for status of gang member

• cannot charge any group even KKK unless they commit a crime or are a terrorist group

Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles

• prohibits using car as shelter

• vague

• no clear notice

• unconstitutional

Roper v. Simmons

• cruel and unusual punishment

• cannot execute someone under 18 regardless of crime

• unconstitutional

Rummel v. Estelle

• 3 strikes law

• forged a check leading to a life in prison w/ parole

• valid bc no death penalty so up to states

Solem v. Helm

• Helm sentenced to life to prison WITHOUT parole for non-violent crime

• forged check w/ 7 priors

• invalid

• excessive sentence

  • too harsh for petty crime

  • disproportionate to other crimes in the state

    • disproportionate to same crime in other states

Coker v. Georgia

• escaped from prison + raped a woman in front of her husband

• sentenced to death

• invalid

  • cannot execute someone for non-death crimes

  • coker test for standards of decency

Harmelin v. Michigan 1991

• Harmelin had a shit ton of coke w/ no record

• sentenced to life without parole

• harshest penalty for this crime

• valid

  • not death penalty

  • punishment may be cruel but not unusual

  • no more Coker test

Kennedy v. Louisiana

• kennedy raped a child + sentenced to death

• invalid

  • disproportionate

  • non-homocide so no death penalty

Ewing v. California 2003

• stole 3 golf clubs + had 2 priors

• 25 years - life in prison

• valid

  • not death

  • harmelin analysis

    • defer to state

Mullaney v. Wilbur

• charged with murder after victim made sexual advances towards him

• assumed the murder was done out of malice

• burden shifting

  • presume murder was unprovoked

  • prosecution must prove malice

  • unconstitutional

• prosecution has to prove every element

Patterson v. New York

• he killed a man who was with his wife

• under emotional distress

• valid

  • was not an element so could be used as a defense

Martin v. Ohio 1987

• charged with murder of husband

• acted in self-defense after husband attacked her with a gun

• law defined as killing someone purposely w/ prior calculation and self defense must proven by a preponderance standard

  • valid

Montano v. Egelhoff 1996

• charged with murder of 2

• law is intoxication is not a defense

• constitutional

  • intoxication is not a fundamental principle of justice system

Sandstrom v. Montana 1979

• law presumes a person intends ordinary consequences of voluntary actions = mandatory presumption

• charged with deliberate killing

  • argued that it was not deliberate bc of mental illness caused by intoxication

  • unconstitutional

    • intent was an element of offense

    • removed prosecution’s burden of persuasion

      • violating due process clause 14th amendment

County Court of Ulster County v. Allen 1979

• 3 adults + 1 minor were found with guns in the car + all were charged

• the minor was the only one who possessed the guns

• NY law presumed that everyone in the car had knowledge of the guns

• valid

  • rational inference

  • but there could be a defense

People v. Decina

• had a seizure while driving + killed 4 kids

• prosecutor argued he knew of his condition so he was liable when he stepped into the car

• convicted on criminal negligence

• narrow time frame: moment car hit the kids was involuntary

• broad time frame: getting in the car voluntarily knowing his body can do that at any time

Robinson v. California 1962

• illegal to be addicted to narcotics

• he was arrested for having heroin marks on his arm BUT was not high since he was a recovering addict

• unconstitutional to punish someone for their status as an addict

• addiction is an illness so cannot punish illness + no voluntary act

Powell v. Texas 1968

• illegal to be drunk in public

• argued he had a disease similar to Robinson aka chronic alcoholism

• valid bc it didn’t punish alcoholism but being drunk in public, a voluntary act

City of Grant Pass Oregon v. Johnson 2024

• prohibited anyone from using blankets, cardboard boxes, and pillows while sleeping in public (parks)

• criminalizes homelessness

• valid

  • just a fine but then it turns into a cycle bc homeless ppl cannot pay it so they get arrested

  • neutral content based on anyone

People v. Beardsley 1907

• partied with another woman while wife out of town

• she ingested her own drugs + passed out so he brought her to the basement

• charged w/ manslaughter for failing to provide aid

  • conviction reversed bc no legal duty since not married

Regina v. Cunningham 1957

• broke a gas meter to steal money but ended up killing someone from the gas

• malice requires wicked intent

• convicted

• conviction reversed

  • malicious is more than just a wicked intent

  • behavior needs to be reckless and intentional

  • 0 evidence he knew about the danger of gas

criminal law

• make victim and society whole

english common law

• king → judges / magistrates → parliament

• foundation of our criminal law

moral penal code

• modernize criminal laws

• just a guideline for states

• The Model Penal Code (MPC) aims to standardize criminal laws across jurisdictions by providing a comprehensive framework, but states can adopt or adapt it as needed.

5th amendment

federal due process protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy as well as prior notice

14th amendment

state due process protection

rule of legality

• all americans are accountable to the same laws

• no one is above the law

• laws must be clear and accessible to the regular person

• prohibits punishment without a trial

• prohibits ex post facto laws

  • making smth illegal after the act was committed

  • aka retroactive laws

doctrine of proportionality

• principle that punishment needs to be proportional to the crime

• cannot sentence someone to die for a non-death crime

• applies to criminal defense

  • self defense must be proportional to the initial attack

    • cannot stab someone bc they slapped you

element

• part of a crime that cannot be touched

• cannot be used as an excuse

mandatory presumption

• shall or presume

• must presume certain facts in a legal case

permissive presumption

• may

• inferences

• legal bc it does not shift the burden

• valid

actus rea

• voluntary act that causes harm

mens rea

• mental state aka guilty mind

• intentional

• knowingly and willingly

criminal negligence

• major deviation from the standard norm

• gross negligence

  • substantial and unjustifiable risk

  • must know of harm

general intent

• blameworthy state of mind

• criminal negligence and must know

  • general assault, receiving stolen goods or drugs

specific intent

• proof of a specific mental state

• element of an offense

• at the time of the act

• INTENT