Criminal Law Lecture 1

Subject of Criminal Law is Behavior that our society condemns as criminal & what we do with people who engage in that behavior.

3 critical issues:  What is a crime, what are available defenses, what punishment will be imposed? 

·       Traditional crimes:  State can do whatever it wants as long as US Constitution is not violated.

·       Federal crimes (eg, mail fraud):  handled by Federal system from prosecution to trial to penitentiary

·       State crimes:  converse

14^th Amendment:  State cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of Law;

            In criminal case, State cannot execute, jail or fine anyone without due process.

Due Process = Minimum standards of fairness and decency in a free society  (e.g., law that you cant wear a white shirt on Sunday, or that penalty for parking ticket is life in prison).

Chapter 1, Section 1 of csbk, pp 1-18 (most topics are criminal procedure topics; 2 important points:

1-      State must prove EACH element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (part of Due Process)
- He defines it as maybe 95% sure (Better than 19 guilty go free than put 1 innocent in jail).

2-      Right to trial by jury at least in serious cases = if possible sentence is >6 mos in jail
- Some states, all criminal trials are by jury
- Jury nullification means person is clearly guilty and jury finds him not guilty (ignores law/evidence)

Chapter 1, Section 2 of csbk, p 18-33:  Theory for punishment & punishment considerations

Purpose for punishment is:  Reduce Harm To Society

1-      Deterrence   (special deterrence prevents X from doing it again;
                    general deterrence prevents others by example)

2-      Rehabilitation counseling, education, job training, drunk driving lectures

3-      Restraint keep them off the streets

4-      Retribution: An eye for an eye (controversial: many feel it shouldn/t be a reason do not argue it)

Summary of everything so far (Minute 7): Criminal Law deals with behavior our society condemns as criminal and what we do to people who engage in that behavior

·          CL is mostly State Law (murder, burglary, theft, etc.), tho there are many federal laws as well.

·          If charged with violation of State Law, trial will be in State court, with States prosecuting attorney and State appeal courts (unless violation of Constitutional rights is claimed by D, in which case Fed appeal court up to Supreme Court); If charged in Federal Court, gets tried in front of Federal judge and prosecutor is US Attorney.

Criminal Law Lecture 4: 

Highlights of information we have covered so far on Mens Rea:

·          Almost all crimes include a blameful mental state as an element of the crime

·          In most cases that go to court, D claims lack of necessary mental state

·          The unlawful mental state is different for each crime (must know the mental state for the major crimes for the Bar)

·          There are two approaches for determining mental state: Traditional Rules and MPC

            Under Traditional approach:

1-      Definition of crime usually contains the mental state requirement; if the word Intent appears in the definition, the court usually will conclude that a Specific Intent is required, but occasionally will conclude a General Intent (i.e., either intentionally or recklessly) is sufficient

2-      If any other mental state appears in the statute, that is the mental state necessary for that crime, but there is often disagreement as to what the legislature intended to mean by words such as malicious, etc.

3-      If a mental state appears in the statute but it is unclear grammatically what the MS modified, it is up to the court to determine what the legislature intended.

4-      If the statute does not contain a mental state, the court will try to determine what (if any) MS the legislature intended to require (usually court would decide that MS of P or R was required)

This resulted in problems as follows:

1        Intent was ambiguous term

2        Courts differed on meaning of malicious, knowing and reckless

3        Courts differed on what acts the word intent was meant to modify

4        The courts search for legislative intent was time consuming.

Under Model Penal Code:

1-      MS is almost always required

2-      There are only 4 possible mental states P, K, R, N

3-      If statute is unclear what elements MS modifies, then the MS must be proven for each and every element

4-      When the statute does not contain a MS, then a MS is still required (P, K or R).

Malicious usually means either INTENTIONAL or RECKLESS behavior on part of D

            (Common Law malice crimes:  Murder and Arson)

If a proven fact makes it more likely than not from a common sense standpoint that the intent existed, then it is permissible to tell the jury that they CAN, IF THEY WANT TO, determine that there was the necessary intent.

Criminal Law Lecture 5:  Mistake of Law & Fact, Voluntary Act 

MISTAKE OF FACT

·          Just another way of saying I did not have the required mental state.

·          Only mistakes as to an Element of the Crime will help in Ds defense
e.g., I thought I was shooting a deer, I did not know anyone was there, etc.

Traditional Approach:
 
1- Specific Intent crime:  If D made a mistake on the critical point of the SI aspect, then whether his mistake was reasonable or not, he was off the hook.
CHARGE:  Here, only issue for the Jury was whether or not D actually make the mistake; if so, even if a NITWIT would not make that mistake, D would be not guilty.

2- Malice or Reckless crime: D not liable only if his mistake was reasonable.
CHARGE:  Here, Jury must determine whether D actually make the mistake AND whether the mistake was a reasonable one:  if BOTH are satisfied, D will be not guilty.

3- Strict Liability crime:  Mistake of Fact was not a defense.

MPC Approach:
If D made a mistake and due to that mistake he did not have the Mental State REQUIRED for that crime (e.g., purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently), then he is not guilty.
CHARGE:  If MS required was knowingly & Jury decides that Ds MS was reckless but not knowing, then D must be found not guilty.

Examples
Sexton:  Convicted of manslaughter thru recklessness and claimed he didnt know the gun was loaded
Under the Traditional approach, the question would be was his mistake a reasonable one.
Under the MPC, the question would be whether he had the mental state required for recklessness.
SO, the only question is whether NJ follows Traditional or MPC approach.

MISTAKE OF LAW

Ignorance of the Law is not a defense Only mistake of Fact or lack of required Mental State.
I made gin in my bathtub because I had no idea it was illegal to do this (i.e., MS requirement is met).

There are 3 exceptions, for which ignorance of the Law IS a defense:

[NB:  1 & 2 valid both under Traditional and MPC; 3 valid under MPC but not under Traditional]

        Marrero case p190:  Error was belief he could legally carry a loaded gun.
        EXERCISE:  What arguments would you make and would you prevail?

1-      Ds mistake of Law resulted in a mistake in a critical Fact found in definition of the crime.
(e.g., Whoever intentionally takes the property of another with the intent to deprive the other person of their property is guilty of larceny.  X errs in thinking the chandelier in the house he sold to Y was his personal property so he takes it down and carts it away; however, the Law defines it as real property, so it really belonged to Y.  Since X did not intend to take Ys property, his mistake of Fact (believing the chandelier was his) resulted in the mistake of Law.  X is Not Guilty.

2-      The criminal statute by its very nature requires knowledge of the Law for guilt (VERY rare!).
(e.g., Whoever spits on the sidewalk with knowledge of this law is guilty.  X spits on the sidewalk but did not know about this law so under this laws definition, X is Not Guilty.

3-      A person reasonably relies on an official interpretation of the Law provided by a public official.
Famous Maryland Case:  Minister asked DA if he could post sign advertising marriage ceremonies; DA said Yes; he put up the sign; subsequent DA cited him for it; found guilty due to mistake of law is no excuse.  Such decisions led to MPC change under MPC 204.3 (dont need to memorize).
NB:  Bad advice from Chief of Police, Attorney General or Prosecuting Attorney (DA) is a Defense only if Ds reliance on that advice is deemed by the Jury to be reasonable.

Requirement of an UNLAWFUL ACT

GENERAL RULE:  Before criminal liability can attach, D must engage in the behavior or cause the harm prohibited by the Criminal Statute. 

The definition of EVERY Crime will state exactly what Act must be established.  The act may be:

·          A specific Behavior (~90% of the time) OR

·          A specific Result (~10% of the time) OR

·          A combination of a specific Behavior AND a specific Result.

SUBRULES that are TESTED on EXAMINATIONS:

1-      Must be a VOLUNTARY ACT:  D cannot be convicted for involuntary behavior (Due Process)
Under both Traditional and MPC a, b, & c apply:

A.      Act occurred during an epileptic seizure

B.      Actor is physically forced into the behavior by someone else

C.      Act took place while D was unconscious (not amnesia): Very hard to prove!  See Caddell, infra

D.      Additional MPC Acts (e.g., under hypnosis - LEARN the acts that MPC accepts as Involuntary)

2-      OMISSION is not an Act & thus is not Criminal unless:

A.      Statute by its very language prohibits the Failure to Act
i.e., requires person to engage in a particular behavior (e.g., file a tax return).

B.      There is a Statutory Duty to Act - This requires THREE things:

                                 i.            Statute prohibits bringing about a particular result BUT does not indicate any particular behavior on the part of D, AND

                               ii.            Ds behavior, by his inaction, substantially contributes to that result, AND 

                              iii.            D was under a Legal Duty to Act; Legal Duty can be established by:
(a) Close personal relationship (parent to child, husband to wife);
(b) Contract between two people that requires assistance;
(c) Person starts to give aid; this results in Duty to complete the task.

 Caddell case p210 An Incorrect Decision regarding Unconsciousness!

Issue:  Who bears burden of proof with Unconsciousness defense:  P or D?

Trial & appellate judge both charged Jury that if D was unconscious there was no criminal liability but that D had to show unconsciousness by preponderance of the evidence; Ds position was that he only had to raise reasonable doubt as to his state of consciousness. 

Why incorrect?

Ø       Regarding ELEMENTS, it is a Rule of Law that State must prove each element beyond RD. 

Ø       Regarding DEFENSES, USSC has ruled (for most defenses) that State Law may either require D to prove by POTE or permit D to merely show RD both are OK. 

Ø       Regarding Statutory Semantic, if the Law uses the semantic a Defense to describe what is actually an Element of the Crime, then of course D only has to show RD.

Thus, if D says, You proved all the Elements, but I am excused because I was unconscious, then S can place the burden on D to prove his unconsciousness by POTE.  But if D can claim I was unconscious, thus a basic Element of the crime is missing (the Voluntary Act required for Criminal Liability), then burden of proof beyond RD falls on S.

Almost every court has ruled that where D claims Unconsciousness, he is claiming that a basic Element of the Crime is missing, and that therefore S has burden of proof beyond RD.

STUDY QUESTION:  Dissent stated that Judge clearly charged Jury that D only had to raise a RD as to Consciousness and therefore the conviction should not be reversed DO YOU AGREE?