Crim law

objective elements

• actus resu 

• 1. Conduct: the statute prohibits conduct itself 

  • Ex. murder

• 2.  conduct + circumstances: conduct is only criminal under certain circumstances 

  • Conduct alone not criminal

  • Ex. sex with minor 

• 3. Conduct + result: conduct becomes criminal when it causes prohibited result 

  • Ex. swinging bat and causing prohibited injur

Subjective elements

mens rea

• D mental state during crime 

• Pro must prove required mental state for each the relevant material elements 

• Need to look at red flag of “and /or”

  • If its or = each element can be done and satisfies the crime

  • If its and= all elements must be done to be a crim

Malum in Se

• wrong/bad in itself

  • Conduct considered inherently wrongful because it causes serious harm or violates a clear moral norm. 

Malum Prohibitum:

• wrong bc it is prohibited by law 

  • Conduct that may not be inherently immoral but is criminalized because the government has determined that regulation is necessary.

structure of criminal law 

• 1.defintion

  • Determine the required:

  • Actus reus → objective/physical elements

  • Mens rea → required mental state

• 2. Imputation

  • Determines when a person can be held legally responsible even though the ordinary elements may not be completely satisfied.

    • Imputation = when the law attributes criminal responsibility to an actor.

• 3. Defense

  • Determines when a defendant will not be held criminally liable even though the elements of the offense are satisfied.

    • Defense = a legal reason why D should not be held criminally responsible.

function of criminal law

• 1. Rule articulation: defines what conduct is 

  • Required

  • Prohibited 

  • Permitted

• 2. Assigning liability: determines whether D conduct satisfies teh requirements for criminal liability 

  • Yes–liability 

  • No–no liability 

• 3. Liability grading:

  • how serious violation and blameworthiness are and appropriate punishment 

 proof beyond reasonable doubt

• Definition: evidence so strong and clear that a normal, logical person has no reason to doubt that the defendant committed the crime 

• P must prove every element of the offense beyond reasonable doubt 

  • Bears burden 

  • 14th amendment 

Burden of pleading

who has obligation to raise issue 

• Prosecution: Full burden of pleading and proving every element of a charged crime, including any foundational reliance on a defendant's unique modus operandi (method of operation)

• Defense: pleading alibi defense, have to show its true 

Burden of production

burden of moving forward–have enough evidence to go to judge jury

• Prosecution: have to present prima facie and show evidence for every single elements for case to move on 

• Defense: provide evidence if affirmative defense like infinity, alibi, defense

Burden of persuasion

proof beyond reasonable doubt—convince court their version of the fact

• Prosecution: heavy burden–have to convince entire court their facts meet each element beyond reasonable doubt (d just has to poke holes in this)

• Defense: for certain defenses have to prove beyond reasonable doubt (ex. insanity)

Legality Principle

act cannot be punished as a crime unless it was clearly forbidden by law before it was committed.

• 1. Fair notice: Exist before D engage in conduct 

• 2. Clearly and precisely: describes the prohibited conduct and applicable punishment 

  • Ex. Marsh case of “willfully defaces”

• Nullum crimen sine, lege, nulla poena sine lege”=no crime without law, no punishment without law."

Vagueness

when statute fails to provide sufficient precision or notice about what conduct is prohibited/punishment that average intelligent person could determine

• Goes against legality principle 

• Crim statute cannot be so vague that a person or ordinary reasonable intelligence cannot determine what conduct the law prohibits

• Brent Marsh Case

  • Issue with language such as “willfully deface”--hard to define wilfully and what is defined as deface

• Question to ask: would a reasonable person know what conduct is prohibited?

Ambiguity

when statute is reasonably open to two or more interpretations 

• Statute can be ambiguous and still clear to satisfy legality principle

• Question to ask: which of the two possible meanings does the statute have?

ex post facto law

changes legal consequence of action after already occurred–make past action have harsher punishment 

• Rule

  • Govt cannot apply new criminal law to conduct that occurred before the law existed 

  • Law at time of conduct control 

Prohibited ex post facto changes include:

• 1. Creating new crimes

  • Cant make previously legal conduct illegal after it occurred 

• 2. Aggravating a crime 

  • Cannot increase the severity of degree of an offense after the conduct occurred 

• 3. Increasing punishment 

  • Cannot impose harsher punishment that was authorized when conduct occurred 

• 4. Altering evidentiary rules 

  • Cannot retroactively change the rule in way that makes convection easier than it was when conduct occurred

pros of legality principle

• 1. Procedural fairness 

  • People know what is prohibited before they act 

  • Protects people from be punishment before conduct was criminal 

  • Promotes fairness and protect blameless conduct 

• 2. Effective deterrence/ avoiding overdeterrence 

  • Clearly define what is prohibited so people can avoid bad behavior 

  • Deters crimes from being committed 

• 3. Preserve legislative function 

  • Single definition of what is prohibited from the decision making branch instead of judges

  • Prevents laws through judge interpretation 

• 4. Uniformity application 

  • Less room for dissectary results, clearly is can be applied 

  • Enforces have clear standard of the rule 

cons of legality principle

• 1. Inflexibility 

  • Make difficult to respond to new or unusual conduct by law is so periods 

  • Criminal behavior can evolve faster than legislation 

• 2. Hyper technical application 

  • Unable to apply statute when the results seems inconsistent with broader purpose 

conflicting

two or more claims that oppose each other and cannot both be true

statutory interpretation when ambiguous or conflicting ()

• 1. Plain meaning rule: court apply text even if disagree with wisdom (ordinary interpretive principles)

  • A. Different language implied different meanings 

  • B. catch all phrase 

    • when a statute lists specific items and use general "catch-all" phrase, the general phrase is limited to things of the same nature, character, or class as the specific words preceding it

      • Ex. "stolen wallets, keys, passports, or other effects" could also mean phone but not car

  • C. expression of one thing excludes others 

    • that anything not included in that list was intentionally left out by the legislature.

D. Lex Specilia–

• More specific statute controls general 

• E. Later control earlier 

  • In direct law conflict more recent will replace earlier laws

• 2. Canon of constitution 

  • A. rule of lenity (strict construction) 

    • Ambiguity resolved in favor of D

  • B. Rule of fair import 

    • Interpreted according to ordinary, reasonable meaning of terms 

• 3. Methods of interpretation 

  • A. Principle of analogy 

    • Empower judge to interrupt law to apply to similar conduct

plain meaning rule (stat interpretation for ambiguous/conflicting)

•  court apply text even if disagree with wisdom (ordinary interpretive principles)

  • A. Different language implied different meanings 

  • B. catch all phrase 

    • when a statute lists specific items and use general "catch-all" phrase, the general phrase is limited to things of the same nature, character, or class as the specific words preceding it

      • Ex. "stolen wallets, keys, passports, or other effects" could also mean phone but not car

  • C. expression of one thing excludes others 

    • when a statute explicitly lists specific things, places, or behaviors, it implies that anything not included in that list was intentionally left out by the legislature.

• D. Lex Specilia–

  • If statute in conflict More specific statute controls general 

• E. Later control earlier 

  • In direct law conflict more recent will replace earlier laws

canon of constitution (stat interpretation for ambiguous/conflicting)

• A. rule of lenity (strict construction) 

  • Ambiguity resolved in favor of D

• B. Rule of fair import 

  • Interpreted according to ordinary, reasonable meaning of terms 

Principle of analogy

Empower judge to interrupt law to apply to similar conduct