Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 1: Punishment Cases

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 23
At a glance
Powered by AI
Some of the key takeaways are the definitions of crime, criminal law, punishment, and how the constitution affects criminal law. It also discusses different theories of punishment and sources of criminal law.

To prove larceny, it must be shown that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of possession of the property and took the property without consent.

The main difference is that larceny involves taking property without consent, while embezzlement involves breach of trust by someone entrusted with property.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg.

What is a crime? Any social harm defined and made punishable by law

What is Criminal Law? Public law, those laws protecting society as a whole

What is Punishment? Removal of life cash or liberty etc. punishment is what whatever
society deems it to be.

How does the constitute affect the law? It is the limit of what can be a crime, ex. 14th,
and 8th amendments.

Where is the criminal law? 1. Common law- judge made law


2. Model Penal Code: American Law Institute put common law into one coherent code.
3. Legislature- Enactments of law by elected officials, ex. State penal codes/statutes.
Punishment Cases

Principles of Punishment Utilitarianism: Justification that serves the


greater good for society
The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens
A person may not sacrifice another persons Retributivism: Punishment equals the
life to save his own. crime ex. Death penalty

People V. Superior Court: Deterrence: to change behavior from


A just punishment should: 1) protect society, example.
2) punish the defendant for wrongdoing, 3)
encourage the defendant to be good in the Specific Deterrence: Change behavior on
future, 4) deter other crimes, 5) incapacitate the individual basis.
defendant, 6) make restitution for the victim,
and 7) be comparable to punishments for
similar crimes. Goals of punishment:
People v. Du: 1. Rehabilitation:
Same as above.
2. Incapacitate:
United States v. Gementera:
Be reasonably related to the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant. 3. Retribution:
Be both reasonably related to and involve no
greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably
necessary to afford adequate deterrence to
criminal conduct
Provide the defendant with needed educational
or vocational training, medical care, or other
correctional treatment in the most effective
manner.
Mens Rea /cases Definitions and Defenses
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 2

Nature of Mens Rea : General Definition: A guilty mind; a guilty or


Case: wrongful purpose; a criminal intent
Regina V. Cunningham:
Malice requires (1) an intent to do the harm that Specific Definition: The mental state the
was done; or (2) recklessness as to whether the defendant must have with regard to the offense.
harm occur

General Issues of proving culpability Specific Intent: crimes require that the accused
INTENT intend both the criminal conduct and its particular
People v. Gentry : result.

Intent can be inferred by the circumstances General intent: crimes require only proof that a
surrounding the crime. defendant intended the particular criminal act,
and not the result.
Defense:

Offer evidence to show that she was unable to


form the requisite intent and thus cannot be
convicted.

i. Intoxication (Not acceptable for General Intent)

ii. Diminished Capacity (Depends on


Jurisdiction)
iii. Mistake of Fact: See below.
Strict Liability
Malum Prohibita- Those that are prohibited
United States V. Cordoba-Hincapie: things that we have decided to prohibit
The term mens rea has two competing meanings.
On one hand, the broad view of mens rea simply Malum in Se- are those that are bad in and of
means guilty mind. Under this definition, an themselves.. They are inherently evil
individual will be found guilty for any criminal
act (Actus rues) that he committed while having We are talking about offenses that have no mens
any morally culpable or blameworthy state of rea to them.
mind. On the other hand, the narrow view of
mens rea provides that an individual is not guilty They are called regulatory crimes.. Most are not
of an offense, even if he had a guilty state of dangerous crimes.
mind, where the individuals state of mind does
not match the mental state specified in the identify the strict liability look for the adverbs ..
definition of the charged crime. If you cant find one look to see what kind of
behavior the statute is actually preventing Mala
prohibita are allowable as long as the punishment
are not to severe and to severe is loss of
liberty.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 3

Staples v. United States:


Absent a clear Congressional statement that
mens rea is not required, the public welfare/strict
liability rationale should not be applied to
interpret any statute that fails to mention mental
state as an element of the offense.

Garnett V. State
Traditionally, statutory rape is a strict liability
crime designed to protect young persons from
the dangers of sexual exploitation by adults, loss
of chastity, physical injury and in the case of
girls, pregnancy.

Mistake of Fact
They are saying that I thought the property was
People v. Navarro: abandoned.
If a person has a good faith belief that he has a 1 They come back to the good faith belief
right to certain property, he is not guilty of 2 And whether that good faith belief is
larceny, even if the belief is unreasonable. reasonable or unreasonable.

If the defendant claims an honest mistake of fact


that will negate his mens rea in a specific intent
crime.

In a general intent crime it is going to be honest


and reasonable.

Mistake of Law (or Ignorance of Law)


The general rule that ignorance of law / mistake
People v. Marrero: of law is not a defense. What that means is that
Mistake of law regarding a statutory definition is we are all presumed to know the law.
not a valid defense unless the mistaken belief is
based on an official statement of the law
contained in a statute or issued by a public
servant.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 4

The court does tell us that there are some


Check v. United States exceptions
A good faith misunderstanding of the law or a 1 A misinterpretation if the defendant
good faith belief that one is not violating the law relies on a misinterpretation of the law by
does not have to be reasonable to negate the one who is charged to interpret the law.
element of willfulness. (such as a district attorney) it is narrow
because we want to limit when people can
argue this.
The person must be acting in there official
capacity.
2. when the Defendant is charged with a specific
intent crime and the Defendants mistake would
negate the specific intent.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 5

Actus Reus
Voluntary Acts
Martin v. State:
A person in not guilty of an offense where
liability is based on involuntary conduct.

State v. Utter

An act committed during unconsciousness


is not voluntary, and therefore one cannot
be held criminally culpable for said act.
However, voluntarily induced
unconsciousness, such as by drugs or
alcohol, is not a complete defense.

Omissions

People v. Beardsley:
A person owes no legal obligation to another
unless such person is within his custody or care
as a dependent person.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 6

Homicide
Common Law Pennsylvania Degrees of Murder Model Penal Code
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 7

Homicides Continued
Intentional killings

State v. Guthrie:
There must be some period between the
formation of the intent to kill and the actual
killing which indicates the killing is by prior
design.

Midgett v. State:
Premeditation and deliberation are required
elements of first-degree murder

State v. Forest
Among the circumstances to be considered to
determine whether the Defendant acted with
premeditation and deliberation required for first-
degree murder are: (1) lack of provocation by
the victim; (2) conduct and statements of the
Defendant before and after the killing; (3)
threats and declarations of the Defendant before
and during the killing; (4) ill-will between the
parties; (5) the dealing of lethal blows after the
victim was rendered helpless; and (6) evidence
of the killing being done in a brutal manner.

Manslaughter

Girouard v. State

Words alone-that is, unaccompanied by conduct


indicating a present intention and ability to cause
bodily harm-cannot constitute adequate
provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 8

Homicide Continued

Unintentional Killings-Unjustified Risk Takings

People v. Knoller :
The theory of implied malice is applicable
whenever the defendant is aware that they are
engaging in acts that endanger the life of
another, not just a risk of serious or great bodily
injury.

State v. Hernandez:
A defendant need not be aware of the risk to
others from his conduct to be guilty of
manslaughter.

State v. Williams
The conduct of the defendants should be tested
from a reasonable man standard. If the conduct
of the defendants, regardless of their ignorance,
good intentions and good faith, fails to measure
up to the conduct required of a man of
reasonable prudence, they are guilty of ordinary
negligence because of their failure to use
ordinary caution.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 9

Unintentional Killing-Unlawful conduct

Rape
Forcible Rape (General)

State v. Alston: Generalized fear of the


Defendant is not enough to render consent to
sexual intercourse alleged void, but rather, the
Defendant must use force or threats to
overcome the will of the victim to resist the
sexual intercourse.

The resistance Requirement

Rusk v. State : The evidence required to support


a rape conviction must warrant a conclusion
either that the victim resisted and was overcome
by force or the victim was prevented from
resisting by threats to her safety.

State V. Rusk: The reasonableness of the


victims fear in determining whether sufficient
force was used to support a rape conviction is a
question of fact for the jury.
General Defenses To Crimes
Principles of Justifications
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 10
2. Self-Defense
a. General Principles
United States v. Peterson:
The conduct of the defendants should be
No or the absence of Yes as Forcible
tested from a reasonable man standard. If
the conduct of the defendants, regardless
of their ignorance, good intentions and
Commonwealth
good v. measure
faith, fails to Berkowitz:
up toThe
theforcible
conduct required of a man of reasonable for
compulsion required to sustain a conviction
rape in Pennsylvania must be more than verbal
prudence, they are guilty of ordinary
resistance, i.e. threat or actual force
negligence because of their failure to use
ordinary caution.

b. Reasonable Belief
People v. Goetz:
A person may use deadly force in self-
defense if he reasonably believes that said
force is necessary to protect himself.

State v. Wanrow:
The reasonableness of a persons actions
in self-defense must be considered in the
light of her own perceptions of the
situation.

c. Battered Women
State v. Norman:
The killing of a passive victim does not
preclude the defense of self-defenseGeneral
. Defenses Continued

3.Principles of Excuse
Defense of Others
Duress
People v. Karr:
United States
Under the v. Contento-pachon
defense of others concept, a
Duress and necessity
person may kill a person arethreatening
available defenses to
criminal liability
another if he reasonably believes that that
person
Peopleisv.inUnger:
imminent danger of death or
serious bodilyofharm.
The defense An unborn
necessity fetus,to prison
is available
viable or nonviable, is included in theis choosing
escape situations where the prisoner
to break the law to avoid a greater evil.
defense of others.
People v. Anderson
Duress is never a defense to murder, nor can the
defense of duress reduce murder to
manslaughter.

Defense of Property/ Habitation and law


enforcement D.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 11

Intoxication

United states v. Veach


Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 12

Insanity

United states v. Freeman

The recognized purposes of criminal law are


not satisfied by punishing someone who is
mentally incompetent.

State v. Johnson

Under the now-adopted Model Penal Code test,


a defendant is relieved of responsibility for his
criminal actions under two circumstances: (1)
when, as a result of mental disease or defect, the
defendant lacked substantial capacity to
appreciate the criminality of his conduct and (2)
when, as a result of mental disease or defect, the
defendant lacked substantial capacity to conform
his conduct to the requirements of law.

Model penal Code

State v. Wilson

A defendant does not appreciate the


wrongfulness of his actions if a mental disease
or defect causes him to harbor a distorted
perception of reality and to believe that under
the circumstances as he honestly perceives
them, his conduct does not offend societal
morality even if he is aware that the criminal
code forbids his actions.

Miscellaneous Common Law Crimes BARRKS


Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 13

Crimes/Definitions Elements

Burglary: Breaking and entering the dwelling Mens Rea: The intent to commit a felony therein
house of another at night with the intent to
commit a felony therein. Breaking: Create a breach or an opening, (or)
constructive breaking creating an opening by fraud
or threat of force, the felon did not physically do it
but they might as well have.

Entering: Go in the opening... physically or with


object/tools.

Dwelling House: A place where person resides or


has resided.

At Night: amount of light in the sky.

Arson: Mens Rea:

Malicious burning of dwelling house of Intent to burn or a reckless disregard for a very
another. high risk that burning will occur.

Burning: any act of charring or more to the


dwelling house and not the fixtures.

Dwelling house: Peoples home (same as burglary)

Battery: Mens Rea: Intent to create contact or negligence


that leads to the contact or an unlawful act that
The unlawful use of force resulting in harmful leads to the contact.
or offensive contact
Harmful or offensive contact: reasonable person
standard.

Can sometimes have consent, like in


sports, but beyond the realm, no more
consent.

Assault: Attempted but unsuccessful battery Mens Rea:

Attempted battery where you try to better your


victim and fail.
(or) intent to create fear or apprehension in the
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 14

victim.

Kidnapping: Forcible Movement: Moving Victim somewhere


they dont want to go
Forcible movement or secret confinement of
the victim without lawful authority and Secret Confinement: No one knows where they
against the victims will. are and keeping them a secret.

Lacks Lawful Authority Over Victim: You dont


have permission over that person like a legal
guardian would have.

Against the Victims Will: Without their consent.

MERGER DOCTRINE: A crime can merge into


another crime assault into battery.

Inchoate Offenses
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 15

Attempt Mens Rea

People v. Gentry
The crime of attempt requires intent to do an act
constituting a substantial step toward committing Actus Reus
a crime and a specific intent to commit the crime
attempted.

Bruce v. State
Attempted felony murder is not a crime in
Maryland.

United States v. Mandujano


While it is clear that the crime of attempt
requires more than mere preparation, the
distinction between preparation and attempt is
not clear. A frequently approved test is that
attempt requires some appreciable fragment of
the crime be committed.

Solicitation Mens Rea

State v. Cotton
The offense of solicitation requires some form of
actual communication from the defendant to Actus Reus
either an intermediary or the person intended to
be solicited, indicating the subject matter of the
solicitation.

State v. Mann;
Solicitation requires the defendant to ask,
entice, induce, or counsel another to commit a
crime.

Conspiracy Mens Rea

People v. Carter
Conspiracy is defined as a partnership in
criminal purposes, a mutual agreement or Actus Reus
understanding, express or implied, between two
or more persons to commit a crimin
al act or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful
means.

Pinkerton v. United States


An overt act of one partner may be the act of all
without any new agreement specifically directed
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 16

to that act.

People v. Lauria
The intent of a supplier who knows of the
criminal use to which his supplies are put to
participate in the criminal activity connected with
the use of his supplies may be established by:
(1) direct evidence that he intends to participate,
or (2) through an inference that he intends to
participate based on, (a) his special interest in
the activity, or (b) the aggravated nature of the
crime itself.

People v. Swain
A conviction of conspiracy to commit murder
requires a finding of intent to kill and cannot be
based upon a theory of implied malice.

Commonwealth v. Azim
Once conspiracy is established and upheld, a
member of the conspiracy is also guilty of the
criminal acts of his co-conspirators.

Commonwealth v. Cook
The fact that a defendant may have aided and
abetted a crime does not establish conspiracy,
particularly where the evidence shows that prior
planning was not an inherent facet of the crime.
Furthermore, neither association with a criminal
nor knowledge of an illegal activity constitute
proof of participation in a conspiracy.

People v. Sconce
Once a defendants participation in a conspiracy
is shown, it will be presumed to continue unless
he is able to prove, as a matter of defense, that
he effectively withdrew from the conspiracy.
Withdrawal from a conspiracy requires an
affirmative and bona fide rejection or repudiation
of the conspiracy, communicated to the co-
conspirators. Further, under California law,
withdrawal is a complete defense to conspiracy
only if accomplished before the commission of
an overt act.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 17

Special Defenses Impossibility

People v. thousand:

Legal impossibility is a defense to the crime of Abandonment


attempt, but factual impossibility is no defense to
attempt.

Commonweath v. McCloskey

Voluntarily abandoning a crime before


completion exonerates a defendant from
criminal responsibility.

Liability
Accomplice Liability General Principle
State v. Ward :

An accessory cannot be tried, without his


consent, before the principal. Furthermore, an
accessory cannot be convicted of a higher
crime than his principal. An acquittal of the
principal bars a subsequent trial of the
accessory.

State v. Hoselton

This court has consistently held that lookouts Elements


are aiders and abettors and, as such, are
principals in the second degree. Further, an
aider and abettor, or principal in the second
degree, must in some sort associate himself
with the venture, that he participate in it as
something that he wishes to bring about, that
he seeks by his action to make it succeed.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 18

People v. Lauria:

The intent of a supplier who knows of the


Mens Rea
criminal use to which his supplies are put to
participate in the criminal activity connected
with the use of his supplies may be
established by: (1) direct evidence that he
intends to participate, or (2) through an
inference that he intends to participate based
on, (a) his special interest in the activity, or (b)
the aggravated nature of the crime itself.

Riley v. State

When a defendant solicits, encourages, or


assists another to engage in conduct, and Actus Reus
does so with the intent to promote or facilitate
that conduct, the defendant becomes
accountable for that conduct.

State v. Linscott:

Accomplice liability for a primary crime (i.e.


robbery) is established by proof that the actor
intended to promote or facilitate that crime.
Liability for a secondary crime (i.e. murder)
that may have been committed by the principal
is established upon a two-part showing: (1)
that the actor intended to promote the primary
crime and (2) that the commission of the
secondary crime was a foreseeable
consequence of the actors participation in the
primary crime.

State v. V.T.:
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 19

Conspiracy Liability

Pinkerton V. United States :

An overt act of one partner may be the act of


all without any new agreement specifically
directed to that act.

Vicarious Liability

Commonwealth v. Koczwara:

One who applies for and receives permission


from the state to carry on the liquor trade
assumes the highest degree of responsibility
to his fellow citizens. As a licensee, he is
under a duty not only to regulate his own
personal conduct, but also to control the acts
and conduct of any employee to whom he
entrusts the sale of liquor.

Corporate Liability
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 20

Theft Offenses

Larceny Larceny

Lee v. State: At common law, larceny has been


defined as the tresspassory taking and carrying
away of personal property of another with an
intent to steal that property.

Rex v. Chisser : Physical possession of a good


obtained through larceny does not vest in the
possessor a legal right to that good.

United States v. Mafnas: Ordinarily, if a


Larceny by trick
person receives property for a limited or
temporary purpose, he is only acquiring
custody. Thus, if a person receives property
from the owner with instructions to deliver it to
the owners house, he is only acquiring
custody. Therefore, his subsequent decision to
keep the property for himself would constitute
larceny.

Topolewski v. State: Where the owner of


property, by himself or his agent, actually or
constructively, aids in the commission of the
offense, as intended by the wrongdoer, by
performing or rendering unnecessary some act Larceny by False Pretenses
in the transaction essential to the offense, the
would-be criminal is not guilty of all of the
elements of the offense.

Rex v. Pear: This action is, today, commonly


referred to as larceny-by-trick. It arises where a
defendant, at the time of acquiring property
from a legal owner, knows that the use he
communicates to the owner is not the true use
to which the property will be put once in his
hands.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 21

Brooks v. State:

If lost property has not been abandoned by


the owner, it is the subject of larceny by the
finder, when, at the time he finds it, he has
reasonable ground to believe, from the
nature of the property, or the circumstances
under which it was found, that if he does not
conceal, but deals honestly with it, the owner
will appear or be ascertained. However,
before the finder can be guilty of larceny, the
intent to steal the property must have existed
at the time he took it into possession.

Lund v. Commonwealth:

At common law, labor or services could not be


the subject of an action for false pretenses
because neither time nor services may be
taken or carried away.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 22

Mens Rea
People v. Brown:

In order to find a defendant guilty of the crime


of larceny, it must be proven that the intent of
the defendant was to permanently deprive the
owner of possession of the property that was
taken. An intent merely to take the property
temporarily will not be sufficient to support a
conviction on a charge of larceny

People v. Davis :

The general rule is that the intent to steal


required for larceny is an intent to deprive the
owner permanently of possession of property.
However, larceny may still be found, absent
intent to permanently deprive, when: (1) the
defendant intends to sell the property back to
its owner; (2) the defendant intends to claim a
reward for finding the property and (3) the
defendant intends to return the property to its
owner for a refund.

Embezzlement
Rex v. Bazeley:

For a charge of embezzlement to stand, there


must be an element of entrustment, to an
individual in the course of employment, of
property held in trust for the entrustor.
Moreover, there must be subsequent
conversion of that property by the individual
embezzler that implicates a breach of that
trust between the parties
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 23

False Pretenses
People v. Ingram:

Theft by false pretenses occurs where the


defendant makes a false representation with
the intent to defraud the owner of his or her
property and the owner is in fact defrauded.
As in any other case of fraud, the injured
party must have been induced to part with his
or her property in reliance on the false
representation made by the defendant.

People v. Whight:

To support a conviction of theft for obtaining


property by false pretenses, it must be shown:
(1) that the defendant made a false pretense
or representation; (2) that the representation
was made with intent to defraud the owner of
his property and (3) that the owner was in fact
defrauded in that he parted with his property
in reliance upon the representation.

United States v. Czubinski:

To support a conviction for wire fraud, the


government must prove: (1) the defendants
knowing and willing participation in a scheme
or artifice to defraud with the specific intent to
defraud and (2) the use of interstate wire
communications in furtherance of the scheme.
Additionally, to be in violation of
Section:1034(a)(4) of the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act (the Act), a defendant must be found
to have knowingly and with the intent to
defraud, accessed a Federal interest computer
without authorization, or exceeded authorized
access and by means of such conduct
furthered the intended fraud and obtained
anything of value.

Any additional notes

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy