Study Materials

Criminal Law

Judge Baird

 

Chapter 1 - Introduction

·         The model Penal Code – May 1962 –common law needed revision to comprehensively address criminal matters

o        It addresses more general matters – more than just definition of particular criminal offenses

o        It carefully defines all matters covered – definitions rather than presumptions

o        Created crime categories – three felonies and two misdemeanors

o        COMMON LAW felonies are those offenses punishable by total forfeiture of land goods or both (murder, manslaughter, sodomy, rape, mayhem, robbery, arson, burglary, and larceny)

o        Added criminal intent – mens rea

Penal code was structured to provide: FAIR WARNING and many other things (deterrence, uniformity, etc.)

·         Revisions of Federal Criminal Law

o        RULE OF LENITY – language must be clear when defining criminal acts, if not, the court resolves any ambiguity in favor of defendant, when there is no legislative intent present

 

Sentencing Provisions of Modern Criminal Codes

·         Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 – 18 U.S.C.A. – changed sentencing procedures for federal criminal cases

 

 

Probation

Confinement

Parole

Misd

X

Jail

----

Felony

X

Prison

X

 

·         Two basic approaches to sentencing:

o        The legislature categorizes the crime and the sentence is determined by this categorization – saves time and is more equal to all being sentenced

o        Individualization of sentences that are handed out taking in all of the characteristics of the crime and of the offender – the severity of the penalty should depend on the blameworthiness of the offender

·         Indeterminate Sentencing Movement

o        Created by the parole system which set out to “sentence” offenders regarding their conduct in jail and their recidivism rate – rehabilitation

In Texas we try to address: Rehabilitate, Deter the activity, Retribution (punishment for punishment’s sake)

o        Judges can take into account their history, severity of this crime, and use minimum and maximum recommended sentences to apply a sentence that is appropriate

o        Offenders can receive parole on good time credit

o        Model Penal Code recommended the establishment of a uniform maximum sentence and judges could set a minimum at an acceptable length

·         Movement for sentencing reform

o        Driven by inequalities in the indeterminate sentence, offenders getting longer sentences for non-legal reasons, and by the fact that a sentence was usually selected arbitrarily, not for any good reason – deterrence

·         Recent Reform: Determinate Sentencing

o        The Federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 incorporates a determinate feature that an offender will serve 85% of their sentence

o        Adoption addresses parole concerns but does not address: prosecution plea bargains, judge discretion in sentencing, or multiple charges/convictions, etc.

 

The Structure of a Non-Capital Criminal Case

Formation of a Law (STATUTE)

Violation of law (Crime)

Suspect Arrested (Stay in Jail or released on bond)

Suspect Charged (Grand Jury indictment(fel) or charged by an Information(misd))

Pretrial Motions and Plea Bargain

Trial (Either convicted or acquitted)

Punishment (Issued by jury or judge)

Appeal (14 courts of appeal statewide – hear either crim or civil) either affirm or reverse

Court of Criminal Appeals (highest court of criminal appeals) (P.D.R. – Petition for Discretionary Review)

U.S. Supreme Court (writ of certiorari)

Habeas Corpus (Bring me the body – to court and takes the case to the trial court which will then go back to the Court of Crim Appeals if the trial judge recommends the case go to crim appeals)

Can then go to Federal District Ct. & Federal Court of Appeals

 

Pleading Sufficiency

·         If at trial, the prosecution has to prove a fact to secure the defendant’s conviction, that fact must be pleaded in the indictment or information(letter filed by the prosecutor) – Failure to do so will constitute dismissal

Reversible Error – an error that affects a party’s substantive rights or the case’s outcome, and thus is grounds for reversal if the party properly objected

      Admissibility of Evidence

·         Objections to the admissibility of evidence may be raised if the evidence in question is not relevant to some issue in the case

Evidential Sufficiency

·         Sufficient evidence to prove the defendant guilty

Motion for a directed verdict of acquittal – If granted the court takes the case from the jury and places it within the court and is further dismissed.

·         The prosecution can not appeal because that would violate double jeopardy issues. This can not be granted for the prosecution because of a right to jury trial. 

Jury Instructions

·         The jury must always be informed with regard to the elements of the crime charged and told that the prosecution must prove each element beyond a reas dbt.

·         A defendant my be convicted of offenses other than those charged in the indictment if those are “lesser included offenses” (Burglary down to a trespass)

·         Called charge of the court

Closing Arguments

·         Counsel discusses the charge and how the evidence applies

Defensive Theories

·         Alibi – the defendant was not there – some courts instruct on alibi, others don’t

·         Insanity – Should consider insanity only if the prosecution meets all of the criminal elements, then look at the possibility of insanity – if they are insane then acquit

Raising a Matter for Jury Consideration

·         A jury needs to be instructed on defensive issues such as insanity only if they are “raised by the evidence” – insanity is fully supported by the defense

·         Jury instructions must make clear with who the burden of proof for defenses lies

Covering the Substance of the Law

·         Jurors are instructed as to the “law” and sometimes these instructions use vague language or are erroneous in content – might lead to reversal by higher courts or confusion by jurors

Argument of Counsel

·         Lawyers arguments are limited to the facts in evidence and substantive law

Appellate Review

·         Very few appellate procedures for the prosecution(double jeopardy), most actions are taken by defendants

·         After trial court, losing side may appeal to first appellate court, after that trial they may apply to be heard by the highest court of appeals

·         Convicted defendants can appeal on a variety of grounds, but most defendant appeals fall into one of two categories

o        Appellate consideration of evidence sufficiency – that was insufficient evidence to convict

§         If the appeals court finds this to be true the defendant is acquitted – no double jeopardy

§         If there is enough evidence the appellate judges will affirm judgment

o        Appellate review for trial error – most cases of appeal

§         Usually refers to mistakes in evidence admission, invalid searches, improper argument or comments by prosecutor

§         Harmless Rule: An error in a criminal trial does not justify reversal of the conviction if it is harmless

Chapter 2 – Criminalization Policy – Justification and function of criminalization

Two major competing theories of justification: retributionism and utilitarianism

·         Retributionism – one who violates the law(or offends morality) merits punishment regardless of if the pain upon the offender can be demonstrated to have any socially desirable effects upon anyone

o        No punishment is appropriate unless an evil has been done on someone’s free will

o        The punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense

·         Utilitarianism – harm which will be done through punishment is justified only if it is outweighed by the good for society to conduct that punishment – general prevention occurs over all citizens by the enforcement of the law in specific cases

 

Chapter 3 – Constitutional Issues Regarding Criminalization and Punishment

Proportionality – Criminal liability and the penalty imposed should be proportional

  • Eighth Amendment – CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
  • Check out Chapter 12….read and re-read

 

The Penalty of Death

  • Furman v. Florida – wanted to remove procedural concerns regarding the death penalty, some states abandoned the death penalty altogether, some others went to amended rules
  • The death penalty had been recognized long before the eighth amendment
  • Led 35 states to adopt statues that legalize the death penalty – upon support of society

 

Death Penalties are justified when they include:

  • Murder and,
  • One of two “aggravating circumstances”
    • It must apply only to a subclass of defendants – not every conviction is murder
    • Can not be unconstitutionally vague

 

Imprisonment

  • The court is a little more lenient with imprisonment and the eighth amendment

 

Coker v. Georgia (CB1) Coker goes in to couples’ house and rapes woman…charged with death penalty

  • Proportional sentence Guaranteed by the 8th amendment

 

Harmelin v. Michigan (CB2) Harmelin was arrested with 627 grams of cocaine and given life in prison

Solem Test:       1. Check the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction.

                        2. Check the sentences imposed on other criminals in other jurisdictions.

  • Reaffirming there is a proportional guarantee by the 8th amendment
  • The court is not going to deal with the ability of the legislature to determine length of sentences, just proportion

 

Precision in Definition

The Supreme Court prohibits criminal convictions if a statute is “vague”

  • If it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute – it is not definite enough

Chicago v. Morales (CB3) Overbroad gangster loitering clause enacted by the city

  • If the words in a criminal statute are vague, uncertain they violate the due process clause
  • A statute can be vague on two prongs:
    • Notice of the law and information – IV
    • Arbitrary and Discretionary enforcement – V

Vagueness test under 14th due process

  • Procedural Due Process
    • Notice
      • Vagueness
        • Assures Understanding of Conduct Prohibited
        • AND
        • Discourages Arbitrary and Discretionary Enforcement

 

Need for a culpable Mental State

  • Criminal Liability has always had emphasis upon the subjective mental state – mens rea
  • They protect the innocent from the guilty
  • Unless it is a strict liability statute

           

Lambert v. California (CB4) Lady being arrested for not registering as per the felon registration law of CA

  • The constitutional requirement of a culpable mental state and notice is greater than the common law practice that ignorance is not a defense to prosecution
  • The Constitution requires a culpable mental state 

           

Montana v. Egelhoff – intoxication

  • This addressed the fact that intoxication can remove the mental state requirement for crimes
  • The supreme court found that it was ok for the statue to remove the mental state
  • This could have implications applied on other crimes in
  • The court was unable to reach a consensus on why this statute did not violate the 14th

           

Burdens of Proof

·         There are two types of burdens in criminal law

·         Burden of Production

§         Who must produce/bring/come forward – evidence in a trial

·         Burden of Persuasion

§         Persuasive evidence to some degree

·         Preponderance of the evidence – Take away property in court Level 1

·         Clear and Convincing – Take away a child Level II

·         Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – Take away your liberty Level III

 

In re Winship – Proof beyond a reasonable doubt applied, the reasons for B.A.R.D.

1.       Command respect in community

2.       Reduces the risk of convictions resting on factual error 

3.       Provides the presumption of innocence

4.       Impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude on the facts in issue

5.       Makes an impact on a free society

 

Due process Requirement of Proof to the Jury Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

When you are taking away civil liberty, the government must be sure they are the right person