Criminal Law Midterm

The Reported Crime

Step 1 of the criminal process where a crime is reported to police[cite: 1]

Pre-Arrest Investigation

Step 2 of the criminal process involving reactive and proactive procedures[cite: 1]

Reactive Procedures

Police procedures aimed at solving specific past crimes known to the police[cite: 1]

Proactive Procedures

Police procedures aimed at anticipated ongoing and future criminal activity[cite: 1]

Arrest

Step 3 of the criminal process[cite: 1]

Booking

Step 4 of the criminal process involving prosecutorial and other non-police investigations[cite: 1]

Post-Arrest Investigation

Step 5 of the criminal process involving lineups and handwriting samples and interrogations[cite: 1]

The Decision to Charge

Step 6 of the criminal process involving prosecutorial discretion[cite: 1]

Prosecutorial Discretion

Based on insufficient evidence or witness difficulties or DPC problems or the interests of justice and diversion programs[cite: 1]

Filing the Complaint

Step 7 of the criminal process[cite: 1]

Magistrate Review of the Arrest

Step 8 of the criminal process[cite: 1]

Gerstein Review

When an arrest is made without a warrant the court must determine that probable cause exists for continued detention[cite: 1]

The First Appearance

Step 9 of the criminal process where the accused is read rights and sets a date for a preliminary hearing and sets bail[cite: 1]

Preliminary Hearing

Step 10 where the magistrate determines if there is sufficient evidence presented in the complaint to move forward[cite: 1]

Grand Jury Review

Step 11 of the criminal process[cite: 1]

The Filing of the Indictment

Step 12 of the criminal process[cite: 1]

Arraignment

Step 13 where the defendant is informed of charges and enters pleas[cite: 1]

Pre-Trial Motions

Step 14 of the criminal process[cite: 1]

Trial

Step 15 of the criminal process[cite: 1]

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Proof that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt[cite: 1]

Davis v. US (1895)

Case stating every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged must be proven beyond a doubt[cite: 1]

Sentencing

Step 16 of the criminal process[cite: 1]

Appeal

Step 17 of the criminal process[cite: 1]

Postconviction Remedies

Step 18 of the criminal process[cite: 1]

The Burden of Pleading

Determining who has the obligation to raise the issue which is typically the state[cite: 1]

The Burden of Production

Determining who must establish what to the fact-finder[cite: 2]

Burden for Elements of Crime

The prosecution has the burden for all elements and issues raised by defense[cite: 2]

Burden for Affirmative Defenses

The defense may bear the burden of production for any affirmative defenses[cite: 2]

The Burden of Persuasion

Determining how firmly convinced the fact-finder must be[cite: 2]

Burden of Persuasion for Prosecution

The prosecution must prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt[cite: 2]

Burden of Persuasion for Defense

Less strict standard typically abiding by a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence[cite: 2]

Mandatory Inferences

Inferences not found in criminal law because one thing happening does not mandate finding another thing happened[cite: 2]

Permissive Inferences

Allowed inferences permitting the fact-finder to make assumptions based on the evidence[cite: 2]

Objectives of a Criminal Justice System

Reflects collective morality and deters unwanted behavior and provides justice for victims[cite: 2]

Actus Reus

The objective element or physical action of a crime[cite: 2]

Objective Elements

• Conduct of perpetrator

• Imputed conduct of co-perpetrator

• Conduct under certain circumstances OR

• Conduct plus a result

Mens Rea

The subjective element or mental action of a crime[cite: 2]

Subjective Elements

Purposefully or knowingly or recklessly or negligently or strict liability[cite: 2]

Moral Blameworthiness

The concept reflected in criminal law through culpability requirements and the distinction between crimes and violations[cite: 3]

Malum in se

Conduct that is bad in itself because it violates morality[cite: 3]

Malum Prohibitum

Conduct that is bad because it is prohibited like driving on the wrong side of the road[cite: 3]

Consent Defense

Consent is not a defense in criminal law unless it fully eliminates the harm[cite: 3]

Criminalization Defenses

Defenses claiming the defendant has not committed the wrong alleged[cite: 3]

Failure-of-Proof Defense

A criminalization defense where the prosecution cannot prove all elements[cite: 3]

Offense Modification Defense

A criminalization defense claiming a different modified offense was committed[cite: 3]

General Defenses

Defenses claiming the defendant did the act but is not morally blameworthy[cite: 3]

Justification Defenses

A general defense claiming an offense was done for the greater good where the ends justify the means[cite: 3]

Excuse Defenses

A general defense claiming the defendant is not morally blameworthy due to insanity or duress or involuntary action[cite: 3]

Nonexculpatory Defenses

A general defense where the act is morally blameworthy but ignoring it serves a greater societal benefit[cite: 3]

De Minimus Defense

A defense claiming the crime happened but is so trivial that it is not sufficiently morally blameworthy to warrant conviction[cite: 3]

Doctrines of Imputation

Situations where an actor will be held liable even if they do not satisfy all elements of an offense[cite: 3]

Imputing Objective Elements

Holding an actor liable for acts like conspiracy or being an accomplice even without actus reus[cite: 3]

Imputing Culpability Elements

Holding an actor liable for voluntary intoxication even if the mens rea was not present[cite: 3]

Doctrines of Rule Articulation

Function of criminal law that defines the prohibited behavior[cite: 4]

Doctrines of Assigning Liability

Function of criminal law asking if the violation is morally blameworthy enough to warrant criminal liability[cite: 4]

Doctrines of Grading

Function of criminal law that determines how much punishment is appropriate[cite: 4]

Conceptual Structure of Criminal Law

Offenses have objective and subjective elements but liability can be imposed through imputation or avoided through defenses[cite: 4]

Nullum crimen sine lege nulla peona sine lege

The legality principle meaning no law then no crime and no law then no punishment[cite: 5]

When the Legality Principle Applies

When a person is charged under a new statute or a vague statute or faces an unlawfully severe punishment[cite: 5]

Prohibition Against Vagueness

Doctrine preventing statutes that do not adequately define what they prohibit[cite: 5]

Vague Statute

A statute that does not adequately define what it prohibits and is severely unclear[cite: 5]

Ambiguous Statute

A statute that defines conduct with some specificity but can be applied flexibly to various fact patterns[cite: 5]

Rule of Lenity

Doctrine requiring any ambiguity in a statute to be resolved in favor of the Defendant[cite: 5]

Rule of Strict Construction

Another term for the Rule of Lenity which resolves ambiguity in favor of the Defendant[cite: 5]

Rule of Fair Import

Doctrine requiring statutes to be given their most natural and reasonable reading which is replacing the Rule of Lenity[cite: 5]

Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws

Doctrine forbidding retroactive criminalization or increased penalties on previous crimes[cite: 5]

Rationales for the Legality Principle

• Promoting procedural fairness

• effective deterrence

• democracy AND

• uniformity of application

Countervailing Interests of the Legality Principle

• Fostering inflexibility

• Promoting technicalities

• Allowing decision-makers to exercise principle of analogy

Different Language Implies Different Meaning

Canon of statutory construction where varying terms like causing injury and causing harm mean different things[cite: 6]

Catch-All Phrase Canon

Canon where phrases like or other must be interpreted consistently with the common characteristic of listed items[cite: 6]

Clear Expression of One Thing Excludes Others

Canon where specifically banning one item like AR15 rifles does not ban other guns[cite: 6]

Lex Specialis

If a general rule and a specific rule address the same factual scenario differently, the specific rule takes precedence.

The Later Controls the Earlier

Canon meaning when two statutes conflict you use the most recent one[cite: 6]

Statutory Interpretation Steps

Using Plain Meaning Rule then Canons then Legislative History then Rule of Lenity or Fair Import[cite: 6]

Ray Brent Marsh Case

Case study regarding abuse of a corpse and whether the defendant acted knowingly or with professional negligence[cite: 6]

Retributive Justification

Justifies punishment by asserting that wrongdoers morally deserve to suffer a proportionate penalty for their crimes as an intrinsic good

Utilitarian Justification

Theory that imposing punishment is useful because it can prevent further harm[cite: 7]

General Deterrence

Utilitarian principle deterring the public from committing the same crime as the offender[cite: 7]

Special Deterrence

Utilitarian principle deterring the specific offender from ever committing that crime again[cite: 7]

Incapacitation

Utilitarian principle using imprisonment or execution to make the offender incapable of reoffending[cite: 7]

Rehabilitation

Utilitarian principle aiming to take away the desire to participate in crime by changing attitudes and behaviors[cite: 8]

Stigmatization

Utilitarian principle deterring the public by making it hard for an offender to get a job or keep friends[cite: 8]

Deontological Desert

Retributive principle where punishment depends solely on the actor's intent and moral blameworthiness[cite: 8]

Empirical Desert

Retributive principle where punishment is based on a community's shared moral values relative to other offenders[cite: 8]

Restorative Justice

Bringing the offender and victim and community together to facilitate punishment and reintegration[cite: 8]

Sarah Jane Olsen Case

Case study regarding a police car bombing examining knowing criminal agreement and overt steps[cite: 8]

Purposefully

Acting with the conscious object to cause a specific result under MPC 2.02(2)(a)[cite: 9]

Transferred Intent

If someone intends to kill one person but kills another they are still charged with purposefully killing[cite: 9]

Knowingly

Acting with practical certainty that conduct will cause a result even if it is not the conscious object under MPC 2.02(2)(b)[cite: 9]

Willful Blindness

Taking action to prevent oneself from knowing which counts as knowledgeable if there is a high probability they should have known[cite: 9]

Recklessly

Consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk which is a gross deviation from a law-abiding person under MPC 2.02(2)(c)[cite: 9]

Reckless Analytical Questions

Examining the

• Risk

• Substantiality

• Unjustifiability

• Conscious awareness and

• Gross deviation

Negligently

Unaware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that should have been perceived representing a gross deviation from a reasonable person under MPC 2.02(2)(d)[cite: 9]

Negligent Analytical Questions

Examining the:

• risk

• Substantiality

• Unjustifiability

• Failure to perceive

• and gross deviation

Strict Liability

Liability imposed without concern for a culpability or mental state such as traffic violations[cite: 9

Concurrence Requirement

The rule that mens rea must be present at the time of the act[cite: 10]

Reading in Recklessness

Under MPC 2.02(3) if culpability is not clear in a statute then proving recklessness or knowingly or purposeful will suffice[cite: 10]

MPC 2.02(4)

If a statute only gives one culpability standard it applies to the whole thing[cite: 10]

MPC 2.02(5) Hierarchy

Proving purposefully also proves knowingly and recklessly and negligently[cite: 10]

MPC 2.02(6) Conditional Purpose

Establishes that a requirement of acting purposely is satisfied even if the actor's purpose is conditional, unless the condition itself negates the specific harm or evil the law aims to prevent.