Criminal Law Week 1-3

General Terms and Case

Civil Law(Tort Law)

Goal: Make the individual victim whole

Involves private disputes (e.g., car accident, defamation, battery)

Money (damages) usually at stake

Standard of Proof: Preponderance of the evidence (51% vs. 49%)

Not meant to punish, but to compensate

Crossover possible: e.g., battery can be both a tort and a crime

Exceptions

• Sexual Violent Predators

• Mentally Insane

🧠 Memory Trick: “Civil = Compensation

Criminal Law - Punishment

Goal: Punish the offender and protect society

Offense is against the state/community

Money and liberty at stake (fines, jail, probation)

Prosecutor = represents the people

Defense = represents the individual

Standard of Proof: Beyond a reasonable doubt

Breaks the social contract and causes social harm

🧠 Memory Trick: Criminal = Condemnation”

Foundations of U.S. Criminal Law Statutes

Criminal law in the U.S. is built on a combination of:

🏰 English Common Law – historic roots from royal courts, judges, and magistrates

🏛 State & Federal Legislatures – enact statutes (modern criminal codes)

🏘 Local Governments – pass municipal ordinances

🧭 Society’s Morality – laws reflect changing values over time (e.g., marijuana, same-sex laws)

⚖ Law evolves with culture, courts, and community standards

🧠 Memory Trick: “Kings, Codes, and Communities”

• 👑 From the King’s courts → 📜 to modern statutes → 🌐 shaped by society’s shifting values

English Common Law – Foundation of U.S. Criminal Justice

The American justice system is rooted in English Common Law.

The original 13 colonies adopted it after independence.

Common law was developed by judges over centuries, before Parliament.

Provided consistent legal principles based on precedent.

In the 1800s, power shifted to legislatures to make laws:

• Laws should be made by the people’s representatives, not just by judges.

🧠 Memory Trick: “From Kings to Congress”

English Common Law – Two Categories of Crime

The most serious crimes, often punishable by death

Included:

• Murder

• Rape

• Arson

• Mayhem

• Robbery

• Larceny

• Burglary

• Escape

• Sodomy

Misdemeanors

• All other offenses not classified as felonies

• Less serious; usually punishable by fines or short-term confinement

• confinement

🧠Memory Trick: “Felonies = Fatal | Misdemeanors = Minor”

Penal Code Statutes – Structure of Criminal Law

📜 Created by legislative bodies (not courts)

🧾 Some statutes codify or incorporate common law principles

⚖ Statutes supersede common law when there’s a conflict

🗺 Criminal law varies across levels:

• State laws – Each state has its own Penal Code

• Federal laws – Found in the U.S. Criminal Code

• Municipal laws – Local ordinances (e.g., City of Irvine)

🧠 Memory Trick: “From Courts to Codes”

Model Penal Code (MPC)

Created by the American Law Institute (ALI) in 1952

Developed by judges, lawyers, and legal scholars

Goal: Modernize and standardize criminal law across states

Published in 1962

Not binding law—serves as a model for states

37 states adopted all or parts of it

• States can adopt some, all, or none of the MPC's recommendations

🧠 Memory Trick:= Model, Not Mandatory”

California Criminal Statutes – Felony, Misdemeanor, Infraction

⚖ Felony

• Punishable by death or state prison

• In California, some felony sentences (e.g., 16 months, 2 years, 3 years) can be served in county jail

• Typically: Over 1 year in custody

• Some states break felonies into degrees (CA does not)

🚔 Misdemeanor

• Punishable by fine or local jail (less than 1 year)

• In CA:

  • 6 months max for most misdemeanors

  • Up to 364 days for more serious ones

💸 Infraction

• Fine only, no jail time

• Usually for traffic or minor offenses

🧠 Memory Trick: “FMI = Fine, Months, Incarceration”

Criminal Responsibility – When Can We Punish?

A person is criminally liable when they:

✅ Violate society’s rules (social contract)

✅ Cause harm through an illegal act

✅ Are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

Society punishes only after confirming:

1. The person acted voluntarily (actus reus)

2. Had the required mental state (mens rea)

3. Is morally blameworthy (not legally excused)

🧠 Memory Trick: “No Blame, No Shame, No Chains”

Proving Guilt in a Criminal Trial – 6th Amendment Protections

6th Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury in all criminal cases

To convict, the prosecution must meet three fundamental principles:

1. Presumption of Innocence – Defendant is innocent until proven guilty

2. Burden of Proof – Rests entirely on the prosecution

3. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – The highest legal standard; every element of the crime must be proven

🧠 Memory Trick: “PBB = Protect Before Blame”

6th Amendment – Right to Jury Trial

Guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (1788) and Bill of Rights (1791):

🔹 Right to a Trial by Jury – In criminal cases, ensures fairness and protects against government abuse.
🔹 Speedy Trial – Prevents unjust delays and protects the accused’s liberty and mental health.
🔹 Public Trial – Promotes transparency, discourages abuse or secret injustice.
🔹 Impartial Jury – Ensures a fair decision by a group of unbiased peers, not the government.

🧠 Memory Trick: “Juries See People S.I.P.”(Speedy, Impartial, Public)

3 Pillars of the Criminal Justice System (CJS)

1. Presumption of Innocence

2. Burden of Proof

3. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

🔹 Elements of the Crime

• Each crime has specific legal components (e.g., act + intent) that must be proven

🧠 Memory Trick: “Innocent, Burden, Beyond = IBB”

Presumption of Innocence – Protecting the Accused

A foundational principle of the U.S. Criminal Justice System

Ensures individuals are protected from the massive power of the government

The government has resources: prosecutors, police, investigators, and $$$

The burden is on the state, not the individual

Rooted in colonial fears of British tyranny, where people were imprisoned without trials

Designed to prevent wrongful convictions and abuse of power

🧠 Memory Trick: “Innocent Until Proven — Not the King’s Way”

Burden of Proof – Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

• Requires a subjective state of near certitude of guilt

• Rooted in Justice Blackstone’s Principle:

  • “Better than 10 guilty person escape, than one innocent suffer”

• Held to a high standard because liberty is at stake

• Gives community confidence in the verdict

• Not explicitly in the Constitution, but derived from:

  • 5th Amendment – Due Process Clause

  • 14th Amendment – Applies it to the states

• California definition:

  • “Abiding conviction of the truth of the charge”

🧠 Memory Trick: “High Stakes = High Standards”

Theories of Punishment

Utilitarianism

Retribution

Denunciation/Expressive Theory

Utilitarianism #1 – Deterrence Theory

• Crime is reduced when people weigh pain vs. gain

• Assumes people are rational and understand:

  1. The law

  2. The punishment

  3. The risk of getting caught

Types of Deterrence:

• General Deterrence – Punishing one deters others

  • Ex: Neighbor gets 3 years for stealing → you don’t steal

• Specific Deterrence – Punishing someone deters them from reoffending

🔒 Incapacitation – Offender can’t commit crimes while locked up

🧠 Memory Trick:

G.S.I

• General: Warn Others

• Specific: Warn Self

• Incapactitation: Can’t Act

Retribution #2 – Just Deserts Theory

Punishment is deserved because the offender morally earned it

Not about deterrence—focus is on justice and moral balance

Based on “eye for an eye” principle

Crime causes harm to the community → punishment restores balance

Recognizes the victim’s value by taking equal value from the offender

Emphasizes moral responsibility and accountability

🧠 Memory Trick: Harm in → Harm out = Moral Balance Restored

Denunciation – Moral Condemnation Theory

Punishment expresses society’s disapproval of the offender’s act

Sends a clear moral message:

The act is unacceptable

The victim matters

Reinforces social values and community norms

Aims to restore order and avoid personal revenge

Acts as a form of public shaming with educational value

🧠 Memory Trick:

Punishment speaks for society: “This is not who we are.”

Rehabilitation – Reform over Retribution

• Goal: Treat the root causes of crime to prevent reoffending

• Focuses on the offender’s potential for change

• Common in cases involving:

  • Drug addiction

  • Mental illness

  • Youth/juvenile crime

• Seen as more humane and proactive than punishment alone

• Often challenged by “tough on crime” policies and the high cost of incarceration

• Balances public safety with restorative goals

Memory Trick:“Fix the cause, not just punish the crime.”

What is a Crime? – Rule of Law & Due Process

• Not all immoral acts are crimes

• An act is only a crime if defined by statute

• The law must exist before the act occurs

  • ❌ No retroactive punishment (Ex Post Facto)

• Purpose: Give notice to the public of what is prohibited

• Notice = Due Process

  • 🏛 5th Amendment = Federal due process

  • 🏙 14th Amendment = State/local due proces

🧠 Memory Trick:

“No law, no crime. No notice, no time.” Crime = Statute + Notice + Timing

Limitations on Punishment – Constitutional & Legal Protections

Criminal law is limited by key constitutional rights and legal principles:

🔹 1st Amendment – Protects free speech
🔹 2nd Amendment – Right to bear arms
🔹 5th Amendment –

• No double jeopardy

• Requires clear notice of laws (due process)

• Prohibits self-incrimination
  🔹 14th Amendment – Applies due process & equal protection to the states
  🔹 8th Amendment – Bans cruel and unusual punishment
  🔹 Right to Privacy – Implied in the Bill of Rights
  🔹 Rule of Legality – No punishment without pre-existing law
  🔹 No Bill of Attainder – Can’t punish without a trial
  🔹 No Ex Post Facto Laws – Can’t criminalize acts after the fact

🧠 Memory Trick:

“No law, no crime. No trial, no time. No cruelty, no fine.”

🔐 Rights limit what the state can punish and how.

Rule of Legality & Ex Post Facto Laws

• Ex Post Facto = “After the fact” punishment

• Prohibits retroactive criminal laws

• Found in U.S. Constitution:

  • 📜 Article I, Section 9 (Federal)

  • 📜 Article I, Section 10 (States)

• Protects against arbitrary or vindictive laws

• Prevents targeting political enemies

• Ensures fair notice to the public so they can adjust behavior in advance

🧠 Memory Trick: “No law today? No jail tomorrow.”

Bills of Attainder – Constitutional Ban

A Bill of Attainder is a law that declares a person guilty and punishes them without a trial

Prohibited by the U.S. Constitution:

• 📜 Article I, Section 9 – Limits federal power

• 📜 Article I, Section 10 – Limits state power

Rooted in English abuses:

Kings used loyal judges to punish colonists without trials

Targeted political enemies and dissenters

U.S. system ensures due process and judicial fairness

🧠 Memory Trick:“No trial = No justice. No attainder in America.”

Due Process Clause – Limits on Criminal Statutes

Found in the 5th Amendment (federal) and 14th Amendment (states)

• ““No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

Requires statutory clarity:

✅ Law must give ordinary people fair notice of what is illegal

❌ Laws can’t be vague, ambiguous, or overbroad

Courts evaluate:

• The purpose of the law

• Whether specific wording is necessary

• The impact on individual rights

🧠 Memory Trick:

“No clarity = No fairness = No conviction.”

Criminal Statutes – Clarity & Due Process

To satisfy Due Process (5th & 14th Amendments), criminal laws must follow 3 key principles:

1. 🔔 Notice to the Public

   • Law must be clear to the ordinary person so they know what is prohibited.

2. 👮‍♂ Clarity for Police & Judges

   • Prevents subjective or discriminatory enforcement.

3. ⚖ Uniform Application

   • Law must be applied consistently, not arbitrarily.

   • Ambiguities in the law are interpreted in favor of the accused

   • Reinforces the presumption of innocence

🧠 Memory Trick: “If You Can’t Read It, You Can’t Beat It”

Notice to Law Enforcement – Necessity of Clarity

Due Process requires that criminal laws provide clear standards to law enforcement.

Laws that give unchecked discretion lead to arbitrary or biased enforcement and are unconstitutional.

Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972)

Ordinance criminalized being a “vagrant,” “habitual loiterer,” “night walker,” etc.

🔨 SCOTUS Ruling: Law was unconstitutionally vague—gave police too much discretion

🧠 Memory Trick: “Arrested for Existing” – vague identity-based labels ≠ clear crimes

City of Chicago v Morales(1999)

Law let police order alleged “gang members” to disperse if loitering

🔨 SCOTUS Ruling: Law was void for vagueness—failed to give fair notice and allowed arbitrary enforcement

🧠 Memory Trick: “O-Block Isn’t Automatically Outlawed” – standing around can’t equal suspicion of a crime

Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles (2014)

• Law banned “using a vehicle as living quarters,” without clear definition

• 🔨 9th Circuit Ruling: Law was unconstitutionally vague—targeted the homeless, lacked clear standards

• 🧠 Memory Trick: “Can’t Arrest You for Sleeping in Your Seat” – vague housing laws = discrimination in disguise

Unclear Statutes – Rule of Lenity

If a criminal statute has two reasonable interpretations, courts must interpret it in favor of the accused

Known as the Rule of Lenity

Protects against punishing someone under a vague or unclear law

California Jury Instruction:

• “If two reasonable interpretations exist, the one that favors the defendant must be chosen”

Principle ensures fair notice and respects the presumption of innocence

🧠 Memory Trick: “Tie Goes to the Runner”

Doctrine of Proportionality – Sentencing & Self-Defense

Ensures punishment or use of force is proportionate to the crime or threat.

⚖ Sentencing (8th Amendment Limit)

• Punishment must fit the crime

• Factors considered:

  • Gravity of offense

  • Harm to victim

  • Offender’s background/history

• Prevents excessive or cruel punishment

🛡 Self-Defense

• Force must be reasonable in relation to the threat

• ❌ Can’t kill someone for a minor push

• Only use deadly force if facing deadly or serious harm

🧠 Memory Trick: “The Punishment Must Fit the Punch”

8th Amendment – Proportionality in Punishment

Prohibits punishment that is cruel and unusual pinishment

Coker v Georgia(1977)

Mr. Coker escaped prison, raped a woman, and was sentenced to death

SCOTUS held the death penalty for rape (non-homicide) was unconstitutional

Only 3 states allowed it → Georgia was out of step with evolving standards

Introduced the Coker Test:

• “Evolving Standards of Decency”

Memory Trick: "Coker = Can’t kill for a crime that didn’t."

🧠 Memory Trick: “Harm, Home, and Homeland”

Coker Test

1. Compare the Punishment to severity of crime

2. Proportionate to other crimes punished similarly in state

3. Proportionate to other crimes punished similarly in Country

🧠 Memory Trick: “Harm, Home, and Homeland”

Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) – Death Penalty & the 8th Amendment

Kennedy was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter

SCOTUS held: Death penalty for non-homicide crimes against individuals is unconstitutional

Reason: Disproportionate punishment – no life was taken

Reinforced the principle: “The state should not take a life where no life was lost.”

Case raised concerns about racial bias in death penalty use

National trend mattered:

• 23 states: Death penalty allowed

• 23 states: No death penalty

• 4 states: Moratoriums (paused use)

🧠 Memory Trick: “No Death Without Death”

Roper v. Simmons (2005) – Death Penalty & Juveniles

SCOTUS ruled it is cruel and unusual to execute offenders who were under 18 at the time of the crime

Based on evolving standards of decency (from Coker v. Georgia)

Court cited neuroscience and behavioral research:

• Frontal lobe still developing (ages 18–25)

• Less impulse control, more peer pressure influence

• Struggle to weigh long-term consequences

Juveniles have less moral culpability than adults

Death penalty for minors is disproportionate punishment

🧠 Memory Trick: “Still Growing, Not for Throwing”

Rummel v. Estelle (1980) – 8th Amendment & Prison Sentencing

• Rummel sentenced to life in prison with parole after cashing a $121 forged check

• Had two prior theft-related felonies → sentenced under Texas habitual offender law

• SCOTUS upheld the sentence:
  ✅ Gave broad deference to state sentencing policies
  ✅ States may punish repeat offenders more harshly

• Dissenters argued the sentence was grossly disproportionate

  • Used Coker Test factors:

    1. Gravity of offense

    2. Penalties for similar crimes in Texas

    3. National comparison

🧠 Memory Trick: “Small Crime, Big Time—Still Constitutional”

Solem v. Helm (1983) – 8th Amendment & Life Without Parole

Helm passed a $100 forged check with 7 prior nonviolent felonies

Sentenced under South Dakota’s Habitual Offender Law to life without parole

SCOTUS ruled the sentence was unconstitutional

• Violation of the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment

Applied the Coker 3-Prong Test:

1. Punishment was too harsh for the offense

2. More severe than other punishments for similar crimes in South Dakota

3. Much stricter than punishments in other states

Court emphasized: Even for repeat offenders, parole must be an option for minor crimes

🧠 Memory Trick: “No Parole = No Proportionality”

Harmelin v. Michigan (1991) – Proportionality & Non-Death Sentences

Harmelin was sentenced to life without parole for possessing 672 grams of cocaine

No prior criminal record

Harshest penalty in the country for that offense at the time

SCOTUS (J. Scalia) upheld the sentence:

✅ Eighth Amendment does not guarantee proportionality for non-capital cases

✅ Court rejected the Coker/Solem test in this context

✅ Emphasized deference to state legislatures:

• “If the people elected lawmakers to create harsh sentences, courts shouldn’t interfere.”

🧠 Memory Trick: “Drugs + Deference = No Mercy”

Proportionality Test After Harmelin v. Michigan (1991)

Harmelin ruling limited the use of proportionality review in non-death penalty cases

Prison terms are largely left to state legislatures → not subject to strict proportionality review

8th Amendment does not require a specific theory of punishment (e.g., rehabilitation vs. retribution)

Federalism allows different states to impose different punishments

Acceptable if they satisfy any punishment theory:

• Deterrence

• Retribution

• Incapacitation

• Rehabilitation

Death penalty cases remain an exception with heightened proportionality review

Court held:

• "Penalties may be cruel, as long as they are not unusual."

• Nothing in constitution text or history about mitigating factors or long sentencing

Ewing v. California (2003) – 3 Strikes Law & the 8th Amendment

Ewing stole 3 golf clubs worth over $1,000

Had 2 prior felony convictions → triggered California’s 3 Strikes Law

Sentenced to 25 years to life for the theft

SCOTUS held the law was constitutional under the 8th Amendment
✅ No cruel and unusual punishment
✅ Applied Harmelin's "narrow proportionality" rule for non-death cases
✅ Court deferred to the state’s judgment:

• Considered the seriousness of the crime

• Looked at recidivism as a valid basis for harsher punishment

• Declined to require comparisons to other states

🧠 Memory Trick: “3 Strikes = No Swing at 8th”

Criminal Procedure 101 – From Arrest to Trial

1. Police Report & Arrest

   • Based on an alleged crime

2. Prosecutor Review

   • Options:
     ✅ Reject (no case beyond a reasonable doubt)
     ✅ Refer for more investigation
     ✅ File charges

3. Filing Methods

   • Complaint – Direct filing in most state courts

   • Indictment – Requires a Grand Jury to find probable cause (mandatory in federal court; optional in state)
     🔹 Used in high-profile cases

4. Initial Court Appearance

   • Set bail or release on O.R. (Own Recognizance)

   • Purpose: Ensure court appearance, not punishment

5. Preliminary Hearing (for complaints, in state court)

   • Two questions:
     A. Was a crime committed?
     B. Is the defendant likely the one who did it?

   • If probable cause is found → case moves to trial level (Superior Court)

6. Superior Court Arraignment

   • Formal reading of charges

   • Trial date set – In California, must be within 60 days

🧠 Memory Trick: “PRIFPA – Police, Review, Indict, File, Prelim, Arraign”

Criminal Trials 101 – From Motions to Verdict

1. Pretrial Motions

   • 402 Motions (evidence admissibility, prior acts, etc.)

2. Jury Selection (Voir Dire)

   • Question jurors for bias

   • Use peremptory challenges and select 12 jurors + alternates

3. Opening Statements

   • Prosecution goes first (they have the burden of proof)

   • Defense may go next, waive, or reserve

4. Prosecution's Case

   • Presents evidence, witnesses, experts, physical proof

   • After resting: defense may motion for directed verdict

5. Defense’s Case (optional)

   • May present witnesses, evidence, experts, or even have the client testify

6. Prosecution Rebuttal (optional)

   • Responds only to new issues raised by defense

7. Closing Arguments

   • Prosecution goes first, defense goes second

   • Prosecution gets a rebuttal, defense does not

8. Jury Instructions

   • Judge reads law and explains legal standards to the jury

9. Jury Deliberates → Verdict or Mistrial

10. Sentencing (if found guilty)

🧠 Memory Trick: “MOPED-CJVS”

Motions → Opening → Prosecution → Evidence by Defense → DA Rebuttal → Closing → Jury Instructions → Verdict → Sentencing

Court Decisions & Opinions – What Happens on Appeal?

fter a conviction is appealed, the appellate court may:

1. ✅ Affirmed – Conviction and sentence stand as is

2. ❌ Reversed – Conviction is overturned; defendant may go free or get a new trial

3. 🔁 Affirmed in Part / Reversed in Part – Some issues upheld, others overturned

4. 🔙 Remanded – Case is sent back to trial court for:

   • Re-trial

   • Re-sentencing

   • Evidentiary hearing

   • Or to follow a specific mandate from the higher court

🧠 Memory Trick: “A-R-A-R” → Appeal Results in 4 Ways

• Affirmed

• Reversed

• Affirmed in part

• Remanded with instructions

Burden of Proof – Production & Persuasion

• The prosecution must prove every element of the crime

  • Think of elements like ingredients in a recipe

  • Jury instructions list each element required for conviction

• Evidence must persuade a rational juror beyond a reasonable doubt

• Defense carries the burden of production only for affirmative defenses (e.g., self-defense, insanity)

  • Once raised, the prosecution may need to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt

🧠 Memory Trick: “Prove It & Produce It”

Burden of Production vs. Burden of Persuasion

Burden of Production

• Determines what evidence gets to the jury

• Involves:

  • Witnesses

  • Physical evidence

  • Legal theories

  • Foundational requirements

• Applies to both sides—especially for affirmative defenses raised by the defense

🔹 Burden of Persuasion

• Determines who must convince the jury

• In criminal cases:

  • Prosecution always bears the burden of persuasion

  • Must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

❓Why?

• Rooted in the presumption of innocence

• Protected by the Due Process Clause (5th & 14th Amendments)

• Prevents wrongful convictions—better to let a guilty person go free than punish an innocent one

🧠 Memory Trick: “Produce to Present, Persuade to Prevail”-0

Burden of Production – What Happens If It’s Not Met?

⚖ If the Prosecution Fails to Meet Burden of Production:

• Judge decides if there’s enough legal basis to present the evidence

• If not met:

  • Evidence is excluded (in whole or part)

  • Jury never sees or hears it

🛡 If the Defense Fails to Meet Burden of Production (e.g., for Affirmative Defenses):

• Evidence is excluded

• Defense can’t argue that theory in closing arguments

• Jury instructions will not include that defense

🧠 Memory Trick: “No Foundation, No Presentation”

Prosecution’s Burden

The duty of the prosecution to present sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This includes meeting the Burden of Production and the Burden of Persuasion.

This presumption is a core principle of the Due Process Clause

📜 5th Amendment (federal cases)

📜 14th Amendment (applies to the states)

In re Winship(1970)

• A 12-year-old was found guilty of theft in juvenile court using the preponderance of evidence standard

• SCOTUS held:

  • The proper standard in all criminal cases (even juvenile) is beyond a reasonable doubt

  • The presumption of innocence must be protected to prevent wrongful convictions

🧠 Memory Trick: “Doubt Protects the Innocent, Even Kids”

Mullaney v. Wilbur (1975) – Elements of a Crime & Due Process

Wilbur was convicted of murder after killing a man who allegedly made unwanted sexual advances

Maine law presumed malice unless the defense proved provocation

SCOTUS held this was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause
✅ Prosecution must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
✅ That includes absence of heat of passion/self-defense when the defense raises it

“Heat of passion” can negate malice, a required element of murder

🧠 Memory Trick: “No Shift, No Shortcuts”

Patterson v. New York (1977) – Burden on Affirmative Defenses

Patterson killed a man he saw with his estranged wife

Claimed extreme emotional disturbance as a defense

New York law required the defendant to prove this disturbance

SCOTUS upheld the law:
✅ Prosecution must prove all elements of the crime (intent, causation, etc.)
✅ But defense bears the burden for affirmative defenses (like emotional disturbance)

Court distinguished from Mullaney:
🔹 Mullaney involved a negating factor (heat of passion → affects malice)
🔹 Patterson involved an excuse defense, not an element of the crime

NY law followed the Model Penal Code (MPC) by recognizing extreme emotional disturbance as a broader defense than heat of passio

🧠 Memory Trick: “You Prove the Excuse—They Prove the Crime”

Martin v. Ohio (1987) – Self-Defense & Burden of Proof

• Mrs. was charged with murdering her husband

• Claimed self-defense: he lunged at her, gun went off during a struggle

• Ohio Law:

  • Murder = “Purposely, with prior calculation and design”

  • Self-defense = Affirmative defense
    🔹 Defendant must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence
    🔹 Factors:

    1. Not at fault

    2. Honest fear of death or injury

    3. Tried to retreat if required

• SCOTUS upheld the law:
  ✅ No 14th Amendment violation
  ✅ Self-defense is not an element of the crime, so the state doesn’t need to disprove it
  ✅ Jury can still consider self-defense evidence when weighing reasonable doubt

🧠 Memory Trick: “Defense Must Defend Itself”

Montana v. Egelhoff (1996) – Intoxication & Mental State

• Defendant was charged with murdering two people while extremely intoxicated (BAC .36)

• Montana law defined murder as "purposely or knowingly causing death"

• Montana law barred the use of voluntary intoxication to challenge mental state or reduce culpability

• SCOTUS upheld the law:
  ✅ No due process violation
  ✅ Voluntary intoxication is not a fundamental right or deeply rooted in American legal tradition
  ✅ States are free to exclude intoxication as a defense

Standards of Proof – Legal Thresholds Explained

• Reasonable Suspicion

  • Used for: Stops/Detentions

  • Definition: Specific, articulable facts suggesting criminal activity

  • Lowest standard – allows brief investigative stop

• Probable Cause

  • Used for: Arrests and Warrants

  • Definition: Reasonable belief that a person committed a crime

  • Required before arrest or search

• Preponderance of the Evidence

  • Used in: Civil Trials

  • Definition: More likely than not (51% vs. 49%)

  • Standard for most lawsuits (e.g., contracts, torts)

• Clear and Convincing Evidence

  • Used in: Family law, civil commitment, some constitutional rights cases

  • Definition: Highly and substantially more probable to be true

  • Higher than preponderance, lower than beyond a reasonable doubt

• Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

  • Used in: Criminal Trials

  • Definition: Jurors must have an abiding conviction in the truth of the charge

  • Highest burden—protects the presumption of innocence

🧠 Memory Trick: “Some People Prefer Clear Boundaries”

• Stop=Suspicion

• Police arrest= Probable Cause

• Pay damages=Preponderance

• Child custody= Clear and Convincing

• Behind bars= Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Types of Presumptions in Criminal Law

• Presumption = If Fact A is proven, you infer Fact B

🔹 Mandatory Presumption ("Shall")

• Jury must infer Fact B

• ❌ Unconstitutional if it covers an element of the crime

🔹 Permissive Presumption ("May")

• Jury may infer Fact B

• ✅ Allowed if there's a rational link between A and B

🧠 Memory Tip:
"May = Okay, Shall = Foul"

Rebuttable Presumptions in Criminal Law

Jury may infer Fact B unless the defense rebuts it

✅ Example:

Pointing and firing a loaded gun → may infer intent to kill

Rebuttal: Defendant aimed at the leg, not to kill

Key Rule:

Rebuttable mandatory presumptions about elements of the offense = ❌ unconstitutional’

🧠 Memory Trick: “Presume… Unless Proven Otherwise”

Permissive vs. Mandatory Presumptions

Permissive Presumption (Inference):

• Jury may infer Fact B from Fact A

• ✅ Legal – doesn’t shift the burden of proof

• Example:

  • Fact A: Person walks in with wet umbrella

  • Fact B: You may infer it’s raining

  • Rebuttal: Broken sprinkler outside

• Must be a rational connection between the facts

• ✅ Approved in Model Penal Code (MPC)

🔸 Mandatory Presumption:

• Jury is required to infer Fact B

• ❌ Unconstitutional if it covers an element of the crime

🧠 Memory Trick: “May = Maybe (Permissive), Shall = Shortcut (Mandatory = No Go)”

Sandstrom v. Montana (1979) – Mandatory Presumptions & Intent

• Jury instruction: “Law presumes a person intends the ordinary consequences of voluntary acts”

• Sandstrom was charged with deliberate murder but argued mental illness + intoxication

• SCOTUS held:
  ✅ Instruction was unconstitutional
  ❌ Intent is an element of the crime—prosecution must prove it
  ❌ Mandatory presumption shifted the burden of persuasion to the defense
  ✅ Violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

🧠 Memory Trick: “Intent can’t be assumed—prosecutors must prove it”

County Court of Ulster County v. Allen (1979) – Permissive Presumptions

• 3 adults + 1 minor found in car with guns in plain view

• NY law: Permitted jury to presume all occupants knew of the guns = constructive possession

• SCOTUS held:
  ✅ Permissive presumption = valid
  ✅ Jury "may" infer knowledge—not required
  ✅ Defense can rebut the presumption
  ✅ There was a rational connection between guns in open view and awareness
  ✅ Jury could have rejected the presumption

🧠 Memory Trick: “If it’s in sight, you might be right — but you don’t have to be.”

• 🟢 “May” = Jury decides

  🔴 “Shall” = Court decides (unconstitutional)

Stipulations – Agreed Facts in Trial

Facts that both parties agree upon during a trial, which do not require further evidence or proof in court. streamline the trial process by eliminating the need to prove these facts.

Example

• The parties agree the victim’s blood alcohol level was 0.25.”
  The jury must accept this as fact—no further proof needed.

🧠 Memory Trick:

“We both agree, so let it be.”

2 Major Components of a Crime – Actus Reus & Mens Rea

Actus Reus(“Guilty Act)

• A voluntary physical act

• Must cause a harm to society or a person

• Cannot punish mere thoughts—action is required

Mens Rea(“Guilty Mind)

• The mental state or intent at the time of the act

• Varies by statute (CA):

  • General Intent: Intended to do the act

  • Specific Intent: Intended the act and the specific result

Why Both?

• Prevents punishing people for thoughts alone

• Ensures there’s both harm and intent to justify punishment

🧠 Memory Trick:

• Act + Intent = Crime Content”

  🧠 No mind = accident, ❌ No act = thought crime

Actus Reus – The Voluntary Act

• The voluntary physical act required for a crime

• Must be a bodily movement under the person's control

• Required by common law and explicitly by the Model Penal Code (MPC)

✅ Voluntary Acts:

• Person consciously moves their body (e.g., John pushes Jane)

❌ Involuntary Acts (Not criminal):

• Reflexes, spasms, seizures, unconsciousness, sleepwalking

• Example: John pushed Jane while sleepwalking = Not voluntary

⚖ Why It Matters:

• Rooted in theory of punishment

  • Can't deter or hold someone accountable for acts they didn’t control

🧠 Memory Trick: “No choice, no charge.”

Voluntary Act & Window of Time – Actus Reus

• Prosecution only needs to prove a voluntary act occurred within a relevant time frame

• Courts may adjust the "window of time" to establish criminal liability:

  • Broad Time Frame

    • Looks at earlier voluntary actions that led to the harm

      Helps establish causation even if the actual harm occurred later

  • Narrow Time Frame

    • Focuses on the exact moment the harm occurred

      May exclude earlier voluntary acts

🧠 Memory Trick: “One Move Is Enough — Even If It Was Earlier”

People v. Decina (1956) – Voluntary Act & Foreseeable Harm

• Defendant had epilepsy, suffered a seizure while driving

• Car jumped curb and killed 4 children

• Defense: Seizure was involuntary → no criminal liability

• Prosecution Argument

  • Voluntary act = getting into the car knowing the risk of a seizure

  • Negligent decision to drive despite condition

  • Convicted of criminal negligence causing death

• Time Frame Analysis

  • Narrow Time Frame: Seizure = involuntary

  • Broad Time Frame: Decision to drive = voluntary and negligent

🧠 Memory Trick: “You Drove the Risk Before the Wheel”

Status Offenses – No Voluntary Act, No Crime

• Status offense: Law punishes who you are, not what you do

• ❌ Violates Actus Reus (must be a voluntary act, not just a condition or status)

• Example of Invalid Status Offenses

  • Vagrancy laws- illegal to be a habitual loafer

    • Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972)

  • Addiction laws= illegal to appear in public while being an addict

  • Gang member in public - presumed criminal for association

    • City of Chicago v Morales(1999)

  • KKK Member -

    • protected—belief/status alone isn’t a crime

• These laws are usually unconstitutional

  • Violate either 1st amendment , 8th and 14th amendment

🧠 Memory Trick: “A Label Isn’t a Crime”

Robinson v. California (1962) – Status Offense & Cruel Punishment

• California law made it a crime to be addicted to narcotics

• Robinson was arrested for track marks and past heroin use

• No current drug use or criminal act—only status as an addict

⚖ SCOTUS Held:

• ❌ Law was unconstitutional

• Violated the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment), applied via the 14th Amendment

• Addiction is a condition/illness, not a voluntary act

• Can’t punish someone for status alone

🧠 Memory Trick: “Sick, Not Sentenced”

Powell v. Texas (1968) – Status vs. Conduct

Texas law: Illegal to be drunk in public

Powell claimed he was a chronic alcoholic, so being drunk in public was involuntary

Cited Robinson v. CA (addiction can’t be criminalized)

⚖ SCOTUS Held:

✅ Law was valid

Powell was punished for conduct (being drunk in public), not status (alcoholism)

Public intoxication = a voluntary act

Law punishes behavior, not the condition

🧠 Memory Trick: “You Can’t Help Being Sick, But You Can Stay Inside”

To Punish or Not to Punish – Limits on Criminalization

• 🚫 You cannot punish a person for:

  • 🧠 Thoughts alone (no “thought crimes”)

  • 🆔 Status (e.g., being a drug addict or gang member)

  • 😷 Medical conditions or diseases (e.g., addiction, mental illness)

  • 🛌 Non-conduct like merely sleeping or existing in public (esp. when homeless)

• Courts have struck down laws that punished:

  • Sleeping, sitting, or lying in public when a person has no alternative

    • Example: Unhoused individuals with no shelter options

  ✅ Must punish voluntary, wrongful conduct, not existence

🧠 Memory Trick: “Crime Requires Action, Not Condition”

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024) – Public Camping & the 8th Amendment

• Grants Pass, OR law banned sleeping in public using blankets, cardboard, or pillows

• Applied fines, not jail time

• Challenged as cruel & unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment

• SCOTUS held

  • law is valid

  • Punishes conduct ("camping"), not status (being unhoused)

  • Relied on Powell v. Texas – punished being drunk in public

  • Distinguished from Robinson v. California – which punished addiction/status

  • Law was content-neutral and applied to everyone, not just homeless individuals

🧠 Memory Trick: “No Shelter ≠ No Shield”

Model Penal Code – Voluntary Act Requirement

• To convict, the MPC requires a voluntary bodily movement

• Examples of involuntary acts (not punishable):

  • Reflexes

  • Convulsions

  • Unconsciousness

  • Sleep

  • Hypnosis

• Prosecution bears the burden to prove the voluntary act

• Must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

🧠 Memory Trick: “No Control = No Crime”

Omissions – When Can a Failure to Act Be a Crime?

• In criminal law, you’re usually not required to act

• No punishment for failing to help unless there’s a legal duty to act

• Moral obligation ≠ Legal obligation

• ✅ Omissions may be criminal only if:

  1. tatute imposes a duty (e.g., file taxes)

  2. Special relationship (e.g., parent/child)

  3. Contractual duty (e.g., caregiver)

  4. Voluntarily assumed care

  5. You created the risk (e.g., hit-and-run)

• Examples

  • 38 neighbors ignored a screaming woman – ❌ not criminal

  • Teens filmed a man drowning – ❌ not criminal

  • Both shocking, but no legal duty = no crime

🧠 Memory Trick: “No Duty, No Do”

People v. Beardsley (1907) – No Legal Duty = No Crime

• Defendant was with another woman while his wife was away

• She ingested morphine, passed out, and he moved her to the basement

• She later died, and he was charged with manslaughter for failing to help

• Conviction reversed:

  • ✅ No legal duty to act

    ❌ Moral duty ≠ legal duty

🔑 No duty unless:

1. Statute (law requires it)

2. Contract (e.g., caregiver)

3. Special relationship (spouse, parent-child)

🧠 Memory Trick: “No Ring, No Rescue Rule”

Duty to Act – Should We Criminalize Doing Nothing?

General Rule(Default)

• ❌ No criminal law duty to help another person,

  • Even if:

    • Help is easy

    • No risk to you

    • Person’s life is at risk

• Pros

  • Hard to enforce fairly

  • No mens rea (criminal intent)

  • Risk of punishing well-meaning mistakes

  • Difficult to decide appropriate punishment

• Cons

  • Law should reflect moral duty

  • No risk = no excuse not to help

  • Can save lives

  • May deter crime if people know bystanders will intervene

Exceptions to the Omission Rule – Legal Duty to Act

⚖ General Rule:

• No legal duty to act = No crime

• BUT ➝ Failure to act can be criminal when there's a legal duty

✅ 1. Common Law Duties to Act

• If a person has a legal duty and fails to act ➝ may be charged (e.g., manslaughter) if harm occurs
  Examples:

• Parents who fail to seek medical help for a child

• Captain of a sinking ship (Italy yacht disaster)

• Boat crew ignoring fire (CA fishing boat)

• Pilot flying while drunk and causing injury

✅ 2. Status Relationships

Duties arise from inherent relationships:

• Parents → Minor children

• Spouses

• Employers → Employees

• Teachers/Professors → Students

✅ 3. Contractual Relationships

Duties arise from contracts:

• Implied: Doctors, nurses, caregivers, coaches

• Express: Hospitals, nursing homes, daycares, in-home care services

No Duty to Act – Exceptions (Risk & Rescue)

• Created the Risk

  • If you create the danger, even accidentally, you have a legal duty to help

  • Examples:

    • Hit-and-run accident

    • Accidentally start a fire, then walk away

    • Push someone into water and don’t help

    • Negligent gun discharge with no aid afterward

• Voluntary Assistance

  • If you start helping, you must continue if stopping puts the person in greater danger
    Examples:

  • Begin CPR but walk away mid-process

  • Move an injured person to a more isolated or unsafe location

🧠 Memory Trick: “Create It or Start It? You Gotta Finish It.”

Good Samaritan Laws – Criminal & Civil Protection

Definition

• Uncommon laws that criminalize failure to help in limited, defined situations

• Only apply when aid can be safely rendered

Examples

• Minnesota:

  • Bystander must assist if they know someone is in grave danger

  • Only if help can be given without danger to self or others

• California:

  • Offers civil immunity for those who render reasonable aid

  • No criminal duty to act unless statute says otherwise

Model Penal Code

• Follows common law default:

  • ❌ No criminal liability for omissions unless statute imposes a duty

🧠 Memory Trick: “Help by Law? Only in Rare Flaws”

Mens Rea – “Guilty Mind” in Criminal Law

• Mens Rea = The mental state required for a crime

• Must be paired with Actus Reus (a guilty act)

• Reflects a culpable mindset → blameworthy intent

• Purpose of punishment: deter, punish, or reform intentional wrongdoers

• Can’t deter or punish accidents or innocent mistakes

Usually defined in the criminal statute (e.g., “intentionally,” “knowingly”)

Distinction:

• Intentionally = Mens rea

• Accidentally = No mens rea → no crime

🧠 Memory Trick: “No Mind, No Crime”

Mens Rea – Key Mental States

• Intentional (Purposeful)

  • Person’s conscious objective is to cause a specific result

  • Includes situations where they knew with certainty the result would occur

  • Example: Aims and shoots to kill = intentional

• Knowing (With Knowledge)

  • Aware that conduct will very likely cause a particular result

  • Includes willful blindness: ignoring a high probability of harm or illegality

  • Example: Buying a $1,000 Ferrari without asking questions

• Willful

  • Done with deliberate or wrongful purpose

  • Often used interchangeably with “intentional” but adds moral blame

• Negligent

  • Fails to exercise the standard of care of a reasonable person

  • Person should have known the risk, even if they didn’t

  • Based on an objective standard: gravity of harm, probability, justification

  • Example: Leaving a baby in a hot car

• 🔁 Transferred Intent Doctrine

  • If intent is aimed at one person but harms another, the intent transfers

  • Example: Aimed at A, hit B = still liable as if intended to hit B

Criminal vs. Civil Negligence

Civil Negligence

• Failure to use ordinary care that a reasonable person would use

• Standard: Simple carelessness

• Result: Usually leads to monetary damages (not jail)

🔥 Criminal Negligence

• Gross deviation from the standard of care

• Involves a substantial and unjustifiable risk

• Person should have known, but didn’t

• Can lead to criminal liability (jail, probation)

• Often called “gross negligence”

✅ Example:

• People v. Decina: Driving with known seizure risk → caused fatal crash = criminal negligence

🧠 Memory Trick:

“Civil = Careless | Criminal = Reckless Risk”

Recklessness Behavior – Criminal State of Mind

• Recklessness = More blameworthy than negligence

• Person is aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk

• Consciously disregards the risk

• Represents a gross deviation from how a reasonable person would act

• Not accidental or careless — it's knowingly risky behavior

🔄 Compared to Negligence:

• Negligence = Should have known the risk

• Recklessness = Knew the risk and ignored it anyway

🧠 Memory Trick:

“Negligent = Didn’t Know, Should Have
Reckless = Knew, Didn’t Care”

Malice / Malicious – Common Law Definition

• Malice = Acting intentionally or recklessly to cause harm

• Must show:

  • Awareness of a risk

  • Disregard for that risk

  • Not just “wicked” motives or bad character

Regina v Cunningham(1957)

• Defendant stole a gas meter to get money

• Gas leaked, harming someone upstairs

• Trial judge said “malice” = wicked intent

• Appellate Court reversed:
  ❌ Malice requires intent or recklessness, not just bad motives
  ❌ No evidence he knew about or ignored the gas danger

🧠 Memory Trick:

“Malice = Knew the risk, did it anyway — not just being mean”

Intent (Mens Rea) – California Criminal Law

• Key to understanding crimninal statutes

• Assign criminal responsibility based on a person’s intent or state of mind

  • General Intent(Less Culpable)

    • Requires a blameworthy state of mind

    • Does not require proof of a specific purpose

    • Covers knowing, reckless, or negligent acts

    • Examples:

      • General assault

      • Drug possession

      • Receiving stolen property

  • Specific Intent(More Culpable)

    • Requires proof of a particular purpose or goal

    • The mental state is part of the offense itself

    • Example

      • Attempted murder (intent to kill)

      • Residential burglary:

        • Entering an inhabited dwelling with intent to commit theft or a felony

      • Larceny (Theft):

        • Taking someone’s property with intent to permanently deprive them

🧠 Memory Trick:

General = “Did it with blame”

Specific = “Did it with a plan”

CA Jury Instruction 520 – Malice in Murder

• Express Malice

  • The defendant unlawfully intended to kill

  • Clear, direct purpose to take life

• Implied Malice

  • (Acted or failed to act) intentionally

  • The act/failure was dangerous to human life

    • Natural and probable consequences had a high probability of causing death

  • Knew the act/failure was dangerous to human life

  • Deliberately acted/fail to act with conscious disregard for (human or fetal) life

    • ⚠ Malice aforethought does not require hatred or ill will

🧠 Memory Trick:

Express = Direct intent to kill

Implied = Knew the risk, ignored it anyway