Substantive Criminal Law Exam 1 Study Guide

Statute Law

legislature/executive, law that is written, enacted through the government through a legislative process, often based on common law, based on lawmaker’s intentional prohibitions

Common Law

judicial, human groups have always had laws, laws reflect the customs of the community, laws emerge out of human interactions and it’s the courts decision to follow past court decisions (stare decisis)

Structure of the Federal Court System

U.S. District Courts → U.S. Court of Appeals → U.S. Supreme Court

Structure of the State Court System

State Trial Courts → State Appellate Courts → State Supreme Courts → U.S. Supreme Court

Trial Courts

judges = “legal umpire,” manages the legal process, rules on admissibility of evidence, and provides jury instructions on the law

jury = “fact finders,” hears evidence and decides facts, makes final decision, asks if the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

Appellate Courts

Defendants can appeal a guilty verdict, an appeal has to be made based on legal errors in the trial, taken as a “factual record”

Retribution

Aims at providing justice, asks what is proportionate

Deterrence

Assumes that future crime will be reduced as the severity, certainty, and swiftness of punishment increases

Specific Deterrence

punishment prevents offender from committing future crimes

General Deterrence

punishment prevents public from committing crimes

Rehabilitation

aims at reform through treatment, uses a medical model of crime

Incapacitation

prevents crime during duration of incapacitation

Burden of Proof

prosecution must prove every element of alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Burden of Production

the prosecutor has to provide evidence against defendant

for affirmative cases defendant has burden of production

judge has legal burden

Burden of Persuasion

defendants may have to persuade jury of defense by a preponderance of evidence

jury has factual burden

Presumption of Innocence

“Innocent until proven guilty,” guaranteed by 5th and 14th amendment due process clauses, you do not have a presumption of innocence in appellate courts

Ex Post Facto

A law cannot punish someone for [changing the rules of a crime, making a past legal action illegal, increasing a punishment] if the crime was committed before the change

Due Process

5th and 14th amendments, guarantee that the government must act fairly and respect all rights owed to a person, criminal laws cannot be unreasonably vague

Right to Free Speech (1st)

Most speech is protected, and to criminalize a form of expression, the government must provide a compelling government interest… some speech is unprotected

Obscenity

Predominant appeal is to “prurient interest” (Roth v US), today mostly limited to hard-core pornography

Defamation

libel + slander, damage reputation, “knowledge” requirement for a public person

Threats, fraudulent misrepresentation, inducement

Direct threats, false speech intended to defraud, inducement to commit crime

Fighting Words

likely to provoke an average person to retaliate with a violent “breach of peace” (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire), words must provoke violence and be specific

Advocacy of Imminent Lawless Behavior

expression cannot be aimed at inciting imminent lawless action and be likely to produce it

Right to Bear Arms (2nd)

Two Interpetations

1. An individual right to own/possess firearms

2. A state militia right to own/possess firearms

D.C. v Heller

protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense in the home, regardless of militia service

McDonald v Chicago

extends Heller to the states - states cannot infringe on the individual right to own/possess firearms

only includes law-abiding citizens, functional handguns, in the home, for purpose of self defense - anything else can be limited

asks if a law burdens protected conduct (Woollard v Gallagher)

Right to Privacy

there is no explicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution

due process may limit substantive power of states to regulate certain areas of human liberty, originally applied to economic rights, now it is a debate whether there are non-economic “fundamental” rights

Penumbra

the right to privacy can be inferred from the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 5/14th amendments

Griswold v Connecticut

CT law prohibiting contraception is unconstitutional

Lawrence v Texas

law prohibiting deviant intercourse with another individual of the same sex is unconstitutional

Cruel and Unusual Punishment (8th)

government is prohibited from imposing punishment that is both cruel and unusual, was originally applied to medieval corporal punishments (torture)…19th century there was a push for “instant and painless” humane punishments

LWOP for non-homicide cases and mandatory LWOP for juveniles is unconstitutional

disproportionately long prisons sentences and fines are unconstitutional

Proportionality

“Punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense” (Weems v US)

What does SCOTUS look at for death penalty standards

“Evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society”

Death Penalty

Does not violate the 8th amendment (Gregg v Georgia)

Only in murder cases “death for death” (Coker v Georgia)

Death penalty for the rape of a child is unconstitutional (Kennedy v Louisiana)

Death penalty for “mentally retarded” and juveniles is unconstitutional

Elements of Criminal Liability

Criminal Act (Actus Reus)

Criminal Mind (Mens Rea)

Cause

Harm

Voluntary Meaning

A bodily movement that otherwise is not a product or the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual

People only deserve to be punished for voluntary acts

Involuntary - convulses, reflexes, sleepwalking, or acts under hypnosis

What happened if conduct involves both involuntary and voluntary acts

It may still be deemed voluntary

Does jury need to know about “voluntary act” requirement

Yes, Jury needs to be instructed on “voluntary act” requirement (State v Burrell, People v Levy)

Act v Thoughts

You cannot punish thoughts, you also cannot punish “status” or “condition” (like being addicted to drugs)

Status Crimes

a noncriminal act that is considered a legal violation solely because the individual’s status as a minor (underage drinking)

Criminal Omissions

causing harm by failing to act, there is no duty to prevent harm to others, omission is only a crime when there is a legal duty to act

Statutory Criminal Omissions

duties written down in law

ex. duty to report child abuse, duty to file income, duty to register firearms

Contractual Criminal Omissions

duties established by private contracts

ex. lifeguard duty to watch swimmers on beach, babysitter duty to look after child

Special Relationship Criminal Omissions

duties established by special relationships (common law)

ex. parent-child, doctor-patient, employer-employee

can be temporary

Criminal Omission Following Act

1. Creation of risk

   1. if a person accidentally starts a fire, then does nothing to stop it

2. Voluntary assistance

   1. if a person begins a rescue attempt, then abandons it

Criminal Possession

possession is a passive condition, but it does not violate actus reus, as we need to prosecute drug/weapon crimes

Actual Possession

physical possession of banned substance

Constructive Possession

banned substance being “within control’

Knowing Possession

awareness of possession

Mere Possession

possession without knowledge

Mens Rea v Motive

Motive = the “why” of the crime

Mens rea= the “intent” of the crime

General Intent Crimes

the person intends to commit the criminal act but does not intend the specific result

ex. “I only meant to stun him with a quick sucker punch, I never meant to break his jaw in 4 places”

Specific Intent Crimes

some specific intent triggers the criminal act

ex. the intent to commit the criminal act of breaking and entering (general intent) plus the specific intent to commit a crime once inside (larceny)

Purposely

person has the criminal act as conscious object, most culpable

“you did it on purpose”

Knowingly

person is aware that the act they commit will probably cause a bad result

“you knew the consequences of your action”

Recklessly

person is aware that criminal act creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm

“you knew the risks and acted anyway”

Negligently

"person is not aware that the criminal act creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk, but should have been aware”

person should have known better

Reasonable Person Test

would a reasonable person have known they were creating substantial and unjustifiable risk?

Strict Liability Laws

laws with no mens rea element, eliminating need to prove criminal intent or awareness of wrongdoing

usually target dangerous activities (owning dangerous pets, bringing guns on airplane)

punishment is usually mild (fines)

must be violations only, except statutory rape

Factual Causation

was X the factual cause of Y, did X contribute to Y, would Y have occurred without X

“But For” Test

but for X, would Y have happened

e.g., but-for cutting the brakes on your car (X), you would not have been killed (Y)

X was necessary for Y to occur, but maybe not sufficient

Substantial Factor Test

was X a substantial factor in bringing about Y

Y may have happened without X, but X was still a substantial factor in causing Y

Legal Causation

was X the proximate cause of Y, is it fair to hold X responsible for Y

is it fair to hold the actor responsible for the harm

is the harm a foreseeable consequence of the act

Intervening Causes

Factual causes that contribute to the harm so that it’s not fair to blame the actor

consider forseeability and responsbility

dependent intervening causes are forseeable

independent intervening causes are unforeseeable

Factual Mistake

defendant commits criminal act, but makes factual mistake, has an incorrect understanding of a situation or event

can prevent mens rea from forming

ex. a bartender is arrested for thinking that a fake ID was 21

Legal Mistake

defendant ignorant of the law, has an incorrect understanding of what the law actually is

generally is not a defense to a crime - exception is where the defendant’s mistake of law negates the mens rea

ex. a man is arrested in a different state for a law that does not exist in his state (marijuana laws)