Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Criminal LawDudley v. Stevens Necessity (extreme hunger) does not justify murder. Starving sailors eat theflesh of one of their own.Led to questions of why punish? 1) Retribution2)Deterrence 3) Rehabilitation 4) Incapacitation

•

2+3+4 = utilitarian, forward looking, 3 =humanitarian, 1 = back lookingLawrence v. TexasA law classifying homosexual intercourseas illegal sodomy violated the privacy andliberty of adults to engage in privateintimate conduct under the 14thamendment. Two men arrested after foundto be engaged in sodomy.-Morals have changed, justices said in the past theygot it wrong, not always simple what morality is-The defendants in the case had an interracialrelationship-Over criminalization: If laws are too broad, thenthere is potential for discriminatory enforcement-People can engender disrespect for the law-Resources are divertedCommonwealth v. MochanCourt can uphold a conviction for misdemeanor based only in common law.An act that outrageous decency andinjurious to public morals is amisdemeanor under common law. Anarrest made for making very indecent phone calls.Legality: vague/ambiguous common law crimestransfer law making ability from legislature to judiciary, separation of powers issue-Nowadays, we followed the dissent, only legislaturemakes criminal law-Need concepts of notice, consistency, and fairnessUnited States v. BergmanReputation and age may be taken intoaccount, but court will still punish for general deterrence and to not depreciatethe seriousness of crime. A good man inhis old age committed Medicare fraud.Martin v. StateConvictions require a voluntary act.Drunken man arrested and taken by policeto a highway where he was arrested for public drunkenness.Voluntary is required because that is part of the purpose of punishmentPeople v. NewtonUnconsciousness is an allowed defense tohomicide. Newton’s shot in stomach andsupposedly became unconscious and thenkilled a police officer.Main issue was that jury did not get to decide theunconsciousness issue.Cogdon case – woman acquitted after axing her daughter to death when asleep.Decina case – woman liable for knowing and nottaking epilepsy pills, leading to an epileptic attack and crashingJones v. United StatesOmission of a duty owed to another may be liable for homicide. Critical issues of fact must be passed on to the jury.Defendant failed to take care of a 10month illegitimate baby who died.-Policy: We have a right to personal freedom, butalso the freedom to waive that freedom and assume aduty.

Pope v. StateMoral duty w/o legal duty to act precludesliability. Pope watched as a mother abusedthe mother’s child (both living with her),leading to their death.Misprison of felony is an old common law statute,and that criminal law should be made by thelegislature.People v. Beardsley – No legal duty to help amistress who overdosed on pills.Barber v. Superior CourtEuthanasia is an omission (of treatment)and not liable for murder. A doctor has nolegal duty to continue futile life support.Family asked doctors to take patient invegetative state off life support.Regina v. CunninghamRedefining, malice requires 1) intent to dothe particular kind of harm or 2)recklessness despite forseeability of harm.Appellant stole a gas meter, releasingnoxious gas and endangering his futuremother-in-law.-malicious = reckless-unlawful = there’s no defenseRegina v. Faulkner – Conviction quashed; a sailor stealing run from ship but burned the entire ship. Hecould not be guilty of acting maliciously (recklessly)unless he considered the risk of a fire anddisregarded it.-culpability – how criminally responsible, is tied toyour mental stateState v. Hazelwood Negligence is when one fails to perceivean unjustifiable risk that a result willoccur. Criminal negligence requiresgreater risk, and you don’t need to beaware of the risk. Conviction reinstated;captain (was drunk) ran ship into reef andspilled oil.-Applied only ordinary negligence (not criminal),since criminal punishment should be imposed onlywhen conduct is something society can deter Santillanes v. New Mexico – defendant cut 7 year old nephew’s neck. Applied criminal negligence.United States v. JewellWillful blindness is not an excuse (for notlooking in a known compartmentregarding possession). Knowledgeestablished if aware of a high probabilityof existence. Defendant was convicted of knowingly transporting marijuana in a car from Mexico to the US.-Willful blindness – ostrich defense-High suspicion + intentionally avoid = knowingly (alegal fiction)Purposely – w/ intent toPurposely/Knowingly – Specific IntentRecklessly – General IntentMotive – the whyRegina v. Prince No statement of mens rea in a statute can be strict liability (instead of recklessly).Some acts are wrong and forbidden initself. Defendant a girl under 16 from her father and claimed he didn’t know theage.AR (taking) + MR (knowingly) + Circumstance [1)unmarried, 2) w/o dad’s consent, and 3) under age16]-Did not know 3), but knew 1) + 2), but 1) + 2)argued not inherently wrong (in 1875)-1) + 2) = material, 3) = jurisdictional-Case is mistake of fact, if it’s a material element(something you need to know) and you don’t knowit, you are not guilty-

What you need to know is what makes your conduct

wrong

-If it’s jurisdictional element, we don’t careUnited States v. FeolaKnowledge of victim’s official identitymust be proved to convict on conspiracyto assault officers. Defendants tried anarcotics rip off and charged withconspiring to assault and assaultingfederal officers.AR (assault) + MR (knowledge) + Circumstance [1) person 2) federal officer], crime to knowingly assaultfed. officer -To see if it is a material element,

in this order

, look at 1) language of statute 2) legislature intent 3) policy (to provide maximum protection, or conductwas wrong)-Policy (from dissent) – different crimes should havedifferent punishments, if they are punished differentthen they should know of it and can be deterred-Jurisdictional = prosecutor does not have to provedefendant knew itMorissette v. United StatesDefendant must have knowledge of thefacts that made conversion wrongful.Strict liability does not apply where theoffense is not a public welfare offense.Mere mission of mens rea from statutedoes not make it strict liability (general presumption is against it), it doesn’t meananything. Junk convicted of taking bombcasing and argued he did not know it belonged to government.Jurisdictional vs. Strict liability-Argued didn’t need to know it was government property – strict liability part-General rule – crimes require mens rea-Exceptions – strict liability (S/L)-For S/L, you look at 1) statutory language 2) legalhistory-S/L crime

indicia

– public welfare (health &welfare, highly regulated areas, small penalties, notlike common law crimes (mala prohibitum), highvolume-Criticism – making criminals out of regulatorycrimesStaples v. United StatesIf a statute doesn't mention a mens rearequirement, the Court must infer intent of legislature and can impute a mens rea.Strict liability is generally reserved for crimes with light punishments (not the 10years imprisonment here). Defendant possessed unregistered firearm, claimedhe did not know it was automatic.-charged with possession of unregistered firearm-government argued it was a strict liability crime for “unregistered”-argued S/L here can overdeter -defense to S/L, S/L can knock out mens rea, but youcan argue actus reas-MPC rejects S/L because it’s all about culpabilityand mens reaState v. GumingaCriminal penalties of imprisonment under vicariously liability violate due process, but may be liable to fines/suspensions.Strict liability carried too heavy of a penalty for this conviction. Waitressdelivered alcoholic beverages to minorsand employer was charged.State v. Baker Defendant argues despite strict liability