1/15/2016

1

CriminalLawProfessorD.CrumpSpring, 2016

1.IntroductionStatutes are key

‐Elements      ‐Interpretation     

‐People v. Latour

Mens rea and Actus Reus

‐United States v. Zandi

‐Problem 1B: Flying while intoxicated?  –elements

1.IntroductionProof beyond a reasonable doubt

‐transformative     ‐Problem 1C: flying     ‐process

Competencies – Decotiis: Not just law school subjects

Burglary indictment simulation –there’s a trick (???)

TheLawyeringProblems:WhatAreTheyAbout?1. Negot/agreemt

2. Documt prep

3. Persuasion

4. Client relatn’s

5. Malpractice preventn

6. The process itself

7. Strategy

8. Uncertainty/adaptation

Not only do I not know how to do

what I’m assigned to do . . . ,

I don’t even understand what

it is, that I’m supposed to do! 

Simulation Exercise 1: Appendix B1 (there’s a twist)

•D wants to plead guilty (it’s common)

•Role of prosecutor; role of defense lawyer

•What do the relevant statutory provisions say?

•What can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

1/15/2016

2

• Typical Penalties for the charged crime are given

•What would prosecutor offer on a plea???

•What should be the defense lawyer’s response???

A Homicide Map for the “Pennsylvania Pattern”

‐‐Murder: “Malice aforethought” (but not really)

‐‐First degree: premeditation, deliberation etc.

‐‐Second degree: other kinds

‐‐including “malignant heart” & felony murder

‐‐Voluntary manslaughter: passion killing

‐‐Involuntary manslaughter (incl. vehicular)

‐‐[Negligent homicide]                  

‐‐a bad pattern?

What are premeditation and deliberation?

‐‐Commonwealth v. Carroll: can be instant

‐‐People v. Anderson   

‐‐Perez overrules (?)

‐‐Problem 2A: the I dare you to kill him murder

‐‐Conley: Charge confusion (bad)

Objectives—See syllabus topics

‐‐Main objective: to learn today’s criminal law

‐‐Other objectives—see handout

Class policies and Methods

‐‐the syllabus   ‐‐the disclaimers (in syllabus)

‐‐class policies, in syllabus   ‐‐exam method

‐‐compression effects   ‐‐solutions

‐‐Biography of a Criminal Case   

‐‐simulations

What is heat of passion? Problem 2B: Carroll

“Depraved” or “Malignant” Heart as Malice

‐‐unintentional murder   

‐‐United States v. Fleming

Involuntary Manslaughter: recklessness?

‐‐distinguishing depraved heart murder (?!)

Criminally Negligent Homicide

‐‐distinguishing involuntary manslaughter?

‐‐Problem 2C: the thrill‐seeking skier

1/15/2016

3

Texas(modifiedMPC):1. murder?  19.02

(b)(1): intent, knowl

(b)(2): intent, SBI

[2. vol. manslaughter?]

19.02(d): included in murder; reduces sentencing range

Texas(modifiedMPC):

3. [invol] mansl?

19.04: “recklessness”

4. crim. neg. hom?

19.05: “crim neg”

[5. capital murder = “murder plus”] 

Tx.PC§ 6.03intent

knowledge

recklessness

crim. negligence

[strict liability] 

Danshoots&killsVic.1.     wants to kill him

1a.   aims carefully at him, not caring.

1b.   wants to injure.

2.     just heard, Vic stole his girlfriend

3.     shoots at target, aware pedestrians frequently behind it

4.     shoots at target, unaware of frequent pedestrians

[5.   robs Vic & kills, execution style]

Sentencereductioncharge

If D proves in the affirmative, by a preponderance of the ev., that he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause, you will so say by your verdict....

Therefore, if you find by the prepond...that Martinez caused the death of Cox [sudden passion adequate cause]..., verdict.

If you so find, you shall fix d’s sentence at any term of years from 2‐20.

“adequate cause” means.... [19.02(a)(1)]

“sudden passion” means....[19.02(a)(2)] 

1/15/2016

4

If you do not so find by a preponderance, you shall consider the range of sentence of 5‐99 or life.

We, the jury, find that Martinez by a prepond. caused death under...[sudden pass., adequate cause], and fix his sentence at ____________________ [2‐20]. 

[Alternate form verdict:

5‐99 or life   _________________

TwoTexasCases‐‐typicality

1.     Rivera v. State:

•Timotheo stabbed; Gilbert shot

•legal & factual sufficiency

•“parties” concept

TwoTexasCases•4 kinds of murder:

ointent/cause death

ointent/cause ser. bod. inj.

oas party, intent/death

oas party, intent/SBI

•“application paragraph”

TwoTexasCases???Martinez: stabbed more than 2 dozen times; claims defending vs. Martinez stabbed umpteen times; claims defending sex assault;

But expert: blood spatters inconsistent.

TwoTexasCases???•claimed error: [invol.] manslaughter omitted.

•what’s a lesser included?

•what’s manslaughter?

•Why no error?

•what about “voluntary” manslaughter? 

TwoTexasCases:Notes(Supp.)

1.     judges’ “politics”?

2.     Rivera’s “application ¶”

3.     Martinez: how use “sudden passion . . . adequate cause”?

4.     does Martinez qualify?

5.       [invol] manslaughter? 

1/15/2016

5

TheFelonyMurderDoctrine:ImpliedMalicelimits of fel murder

1.  “dangerousness”?

a.  “dangerous felony?”

b.  “dangerous act”

2.  merger‐‐a lesser included [homicidal] crime shouldn’t be used as predicate

TheFelonyMurderDoctrine:ImpliedMalice3.     in furtherance

4.     causation

a.   “agency” approach‐‐only acts of D

b.  proximate cause

c.       broader cause (but‐for; “set in motion”)

• see Texas 19.02(b)(3) 

Roth&Sundby (Againstfelmurder)1.     “patchwork” attempts to mitigate

2.     most serious sanction shouldn’t be for accident

3.     deterrence illogical

a.     how deter unintended act?

b.     felons won’t know the rule

4.     transferred intent/ constructive malice:  illogical

5.     retributive purpose operates “regardless of culpability”

Crump (Defenseoffelmurderdoctrine)1.     rational classificatn, grading:  robbery w/death isn’t just a robbery.

2.     condemnation: human life.  condemnation “operates on the upright”‐‐society, victim.

3.     deterrence‐‐opponents’ assumptions

[4.   other arguments]

[5.   limits aren’t patchwork but related to purposes; every crime has limits] 

Crumparticleongood/badfelonymurderdefinition• biggest criticism of felony murder: separated from blameworthiness

• “Bad” ??? felony murder definition???: California

‐‐applies to “dangerous felonies.” Needn’t be dangerous act.

‐‐haphazard def’n of dangerous felonies.

‐‐liability / blameworthiness separated???

Crumparticleongood/badfelonymurderdefinition• “Good” felony murder defn’: Texas

‐‐not only requires felony and causation, but also

‐‐D must cause by act “clearly dangerous to human life”

‐‐liability / blameworthiness connected, with this law???

‐‐remaining issues: negligent felonies? co‐party? 

1/15/2016

6

If D proves in the affirmative, by a preponderance of the ev., that he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause....Therefore, if you find by the prepond...that Martinez caused the death of Cox [by sudden passion / adequate cause]..., you shall say by verdict.         

“adequate cause” means.... [19.02(a)]

“sudden passion” means.... [19.02(a)]

If you so find, you shall fix d’s sentence at any term of years from 2‐20.       

If you do not so find by a preponderance, you shall consider the range of sentence of 5‐99 or life.

We, the jury, find that Martinez by a prepond. caused death under…[sudden pass., adequate cause], and fix his sentence at [2‐20]. __

[Alternate form verdict: 5‐99 or life].__

3.ElementsofCrimes:ProblemsBreak this into elements:

“A person commits an offense if s(he) knowingly enters a private place on a Sunday with intent to defraud and manifests loud, raucous or belligerent behavior toward any person or animal while bearing a firearm on or about his/her person, unless the person is acquainted with any person who regularly inhabits the private place so entered.”

CommonLawBurglary

…is breaking and entering into the dwelling house of another at night with intent to commit a felony therein.

Imagine this municipal ordinance:

“. . . a person who keeps within the territory of the city any number of [list of animals], and who is not in the business of boarding animals, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

•An unprovable offense. Why?

WhatelementsinDWI?

•main statute, 49.04

•additional provisions

• the “drunk, drugged or sleepy” apparent “wheelchair pedestrian”

“Harassment”‐‐why hard to prosecute? 

1/15/2016

7

Tx.P.C.§ 6.01:voluntaryact,omission,possession

“actus reus” also includes: act, circumstances, result

what is actus reus for

∙   murder?  § 19.02(a)(1)

∙   attempted murder? § 15.01

∙   felony murder? § 19.02(a)(3)

State v. Sowry

∙   actus reus? Argument contrary to holding?

Omission as actus reus

∙   There must be a duty

∙   Sources of duties

∙   Problem 3C (overdose; dumping)

Possession

∙   Is it an act? A status? A willing something?

∙   Constructive possession

∙   Zandi

Circumstancesarepartoftheactusreus

Commonwealth v. Noel

•State has a better argument than appears

•Circumstances

Circumstancesarepartoftheactusreus

Harm is part of the actus reus(death, for murder)

Causation is part of the actus reus

•But‐for or variations (proximate)

•Problem 3d (street racing)

Mens rea

•Proof—Problem 3E

•General /specific Intent: Kimes(asslt officer)

•Variety of traditional mentes reae

•Model Penal Code

1/15/2016

8

Fourmentalstates(actually,five)

•Purposefully (intentionally)

•Knowingly—subjective? Objective?

•Recklessly—note downward inclusiveness

•Criminally negligently (contrast ord. neg.)

• [strict liability]—note default mens rea

Remember: intent, knowledge, recklessness, crim. negligence

Illustrations:

∙   Problem 3F (bumped car)

∙   United States v. Lynch (archeo. resource)

∙   People v. Hall (thrill‐seeking skier)

SimulationExercise3:IndictmentSee Appendix B1, for the form & format

• Jurisdiction (county, state; after g. jury formed)

•On‐or‐about date

•All necessary elements of crime

• Identify certain elements (D; victim; manner & means

Simulation Exercise 4: Court’s charge—

See Appendix B2, end, for the form & format

•Define the crime (our law provides)

•Application paragraph (therefore, if you find)

1. false stmt to obtain gambling license:  mail fraud? COVERS: “artifice to (a) defraud or (b) obtain propty”

2. intentional damg to computer data owned by corporation.  Computer fraud?  COVERS “damage to individual” 

Thelogicofstatutes•Syllogism—deductive logic

•Types

•Analogy—inductive logic

•Generalization or Induction—also inductive logic

•Examples, notes

• IRAC as applied to statutes

1/15/2016

9

Interpretingtheelements?formalism

Instrumentalism

1. murder statute, construed by each

2. Douglas’s penumbra, Black’s no provision

natural law

positivism

1‐2. Iredell & Chase

3. right to define “meaning of universe”?

Bobbitt’s6InterpModalities• textual

•historical

•structural

•doctrinal

•prudential

•ethical

Bobbitt’s6InterpModalities1. const of death penalty

2. different interp of Bible?

3. which modalities superior/disfavored?

4.TheBurdenofProof

const req’mt/proof: Winship

What about an issue not an “element”?

1. Mullaney: passion negates malice

2. Patterson: passion independent of malice

4.TheBurdenofProof3. play upon words?

4. elements, defenses, & aff. defenses

5. passion killing in Tex.

6.‐7. what should be element, defense, aff. def?

BurdenofProofcont’d1. Tex. P.C. 2.01: elements/exceptions

2. defense formulas, prosecution

3. examples

4. should court define? (Paulson)

5. can circumstantial ev. suffice?

1/15/2016

10

The“n”ControversyThe “n” controversy: how many guilty to be freed?

1. 1 ≤ n ≤ 1,000?

2. n skeptics

3. n & crime rate‐‐related?

4. does anacceptable n value exist?

5. if n affected by prejudices?

6. only better is better?

Costs/Erroneous/…Costs/erroneous/acquittal: Langley case

1. critique jury (argument: acquittal was wrong‐‐or right?)

2. was this an “error”? what costs?

3. “reasonableness” depend on harmfulness / acquittal error?

Costs/Erroneous/…Costs/erroneous/conviction

1. the protections

2. “We’re Sorry”: why didn’t protectns work?

3. costs/erroneous conv.

4. the ethical q: erroneous acquittal preferred?

5. real‐world ethics: err. acquittal not ethically superior?

Stogsdill v.State:hairevidence,Kump’s evidence,etc.

1. critique? (deference to jury?)

2. cumulative, circumstantial?

3. TV: “motive, opportunity, means”

4. other questionable elements?

5. “manner & means unknown”?

DNA&Statistics1. would DNA change Stogsdill? (sorry, but no)

2. the CSI effect: “where’s the DNA?”

3.    experts needed to prove up DNA?

DNA&Statistics4. what does “1 in a million” mean?

5. how good is DNA? (lab errors)

6. when DNA is powerful: product rule, Bayes’ Theorem

7. popular understanding of Bayes

1/15/2016

11

EyewitnessEvidence1. “preferred”? why?

2. “better” than science/circumstantial?

3. serial crimes: law enforcemtmethod?

4. experts on ID? factors? instructions?

ExpertsonIDFactors

1. forgetting curve

2. stress = distortion

3. assimilation

4. feedback

5. confidence ≠ accuracy

6. second‐ID transfer

7. cross‐racial

Otherburdens (nottrialguiltelements)

1. true defenses?

2. redraft: difficult elements, change to D’s defenses 

3. sentencing

4. screening stages

5. presumptions?

ProceduresInfluencingProofBurden1. evidence: similar crimes

2. joinder/similar crimes

3. pretrial motions

4. confessions statute

5. corroboration as a proof element

5.Assault&RelatedOffenses

Notes 4‐5: different jurisdictions, multiple crimes

specific intent assaults, some states

5.Assault&RelatedOffensesTX: 22.01 simple assault: elements

.021 agg assault—serious bod inj; high def’n

[attempted murder]

.04 injury/child—note, can be negligent

.05 deadly conduct—e.g., pointing firearm

.07 terroristic threat—what mental state?

1/15/2016

12

5.Assault&RelatedOffenses(cont.)

Stalking, TX 47.027

Harassment, TX 42.07(a)

Domestic violence

•mandatory arrest, special def’n, etc.

•Warren Moon’s case

5.Assault&RelatedOffenses(cont.)sexual assault (rape)

1. actus reus: force, etc.; nonconsent; sexual act

2. mens rea

5.Assault&RelatedOffenses(cont.)mens rea

‐ does it attach only to sexual act?

‐ does it attach only to sexual act plus force?

‐ attach to sexual act; plus force, plus nonconsent?

• knowledge of nonconsent, recklessness, crim negligence?

•Reynolds v. State (Alaska: reckless, negligence?)

5.Assault&RelatedOffenses(cont.)TX 22.011 (a‐b) basic sexual asslt

1. (a) D (b) intent, knowl, (c) causes (d) penetratn (e) anus or sexual org etc. (f) w/out consent

2. What is “w/out consent”? Multiple definitions.

5.Assault&RelatedOffenses(cont.)3. What mental state?

4. Is intent to do act enough, or must D know/intend nonconsent?

•Problem 5F (Kobe Bryant)

5.Assault&RelatedOffenses(cont.)TX 22.011 sex asslt/child

[“strict liab”?]

22.021 agg sex asslt

[by threat SBI; DW]—Rucker v. State

[amendment changes Rucker]

1/15/2016

13

5.Assault&RelatedOffenses(cont.)Other offenses: 20.03‐.04 kidnap; aggkidnap

20.01(2) def’n of abduct

20.02 unlawful restraint

6.GeneralDefenses1. self‐defense—see next slide

2. defense of another: “step into shoes” vs. 

[Tx. § 9.33:] reasonable belief—see next slide

3. defense/propty, § 9.41‐44 “when & to degree reas belief immed necess” 

[deadly force]

6.GeneralDefenses4. law enforcement, § 9.51 when & to degree reas believes necess & reas believes valid

[deadly force] [civil liability]

5. resist/arrest, § 9.31(c)

• usually: NO! exception: unreas force, first

6. necessity, § 9.22, Commonwealth v. Leno—needle exchange

7. public duty, § 9.21

8. discipline, § 9.61‐62

Self‐defenseTEX: when & to degree reas believes immed necess to protect agnst others use unlawful force‐‐objective std(why?)

Deadly force restrictions

•Retreat rules, deadly force v. home/”castle” v. stand/ground

•“Provocation”

Self‐defense•Problem 6A, George Zimmerman

•Problem 6B, Hockey Dad

Defense/ third person

•People v. Randle, shooting after too‐long beating

DuressandEntrapment1. duress: Contento‐Pachon:

•“imminent death/SBI”

•TX: § 8.05 similar; affirmative defense

2. entrapment:

•Subjective v. objective approach

•TX: § 8.06, requires both:

•“induced” by “persuasion . . . likely to cause”

1/15/2016

14

InsanityDefinitions1. M’Naghten: cognitive‐‐knowledge of act/wrong

2. “irresistible impulse”

3. Durham: “product” of “mental disease/defect” [rejected]

•responsibility v. determinism

•strategy (deterrence) v. determinism

•meaning of “product”?

Insanitycont’d•compulsive gambling as defense/robbery?

• intoxication, alcoholism‐related?

• severe environmental deprivation (“rotten social bkground defense”)?

•clinical depression, postpartum onset?

•PTSD; rape trauma syndrome?

•XYY syndrome?

• “affluenza?”

Moreinsanitydefinitions4. Freeman: MPC

criticisms of M’Naghten

“as a result/mental defect, lacks substcapacity/appreciate wrongfulness or conform conduct” [since J. Hinckley, widelyrejected]

5. abolition; guilty but insane

6. TX: § 8.01, M’Naghten‐like affirmativedefense

•Problem 6F: stoning of children

Intoxication

Intoxication: “no defense” Tx § 8.04

Intoxication•Mistake/fact: Tx § 8.02 reas belief negates mens rea

•unless strict liability: State v. Perez, sex asslt / child

•mistake/law: Tx § 8.03 ignorance no defense, but aff defense: reas belief + written documt, authoritative

United States v. Albertini, protester, ct. op. later reversed

7.TheftandRelatedOffensesI. Larceny

1. property 2. of another 3. caption 4. asportation 5. intent/deprive: People v. Meyer, coat chain

II. Larceny by trick

1. poss’n obtained 2. trick, not caption: King v. Pear, horse

1/15/2016

15

7.TheftandRelatedOffensesIII. False pretenses

1. title obtained 2. by deception: People v. Phebus, price tag

IV. Embezzlement

1. fraudulent 2. appropriation of

3. propty/another 4. by entrusted: Problem 7C, employee‐‐$

FederalCrimesBank robbery (actually, theft): broad coverage?

•Bell v. United States, stolen check

Mail / wire fraud

•Again, broad coverage

•But generally limited to propty

•Honest services—Skilling; if propty taken

•What about fraudulently getting gambling license?

ConsolidationofTheftOffenses1. the problem—Problem 7D, baseball ticket checks

2. the solution

Tx. 31.03:

1. [def’n] exercise control

2. property [def’n]

3. intent to

4. deprive [defn: perm or extended]

5. the owner

6. w/out effective consent [defined]

Remainingissues;theft/servicesRemaining issues

•Theft/services, TX § 31.04; services defined.

• temporary deprivation? UUMV, §31.07

• forgery, § 32.21

•check offense, § 32.41(a)(b)

•related offenses

ReceivingStolenProperty

1. defined as theft

2. why?

3. importance

ReceivingStolenProperty4. difficulties; solutions

a. proof/knowledge

b. corroboration

c. similar transactions

d. record keeping

e. law enf. Stings?

1/15/2016

16

OtherIssues

•Belief about right to keep: Problem 7H (bank error)

•Theft/services, TX § 31.04; services defined. Computer offenses: Note 5, United States v. Drew (MySpace)

• Identity theft

8.“Theft‐Plus”Offenses•Robbery

1. course/theft

2. intent/control

3. reckless inj/knowing threat

•State v. Holmes (keeping jewels); Problem 8A (carjack)

•Agg robbery: SBI/DW/etc.

8.“Theft‐Plus”Offenses•Extortion: TX, it’s theft

•Burglary

1. enters 2. bldg or portion 3. not open/public 4. intent 5. entry or: concealment; & 6. obj crime

•Reconsider State v. Bates (indicted burglary, in appendix)

9.SentencingEthical Philosophies

Teleology = nature & purpose

•consequentialism

•Bentham, Mill: utilitarianism; economics

Deontology = non‐purposive

• (not cost/benefit)

•Kant : imitation principle, categorical imperative

1. Utilitarianism & slavery‐‐slave owners wd like.

• But Kantianism opposes; why?

2. Utilitarianism & vulnerable minorities:

• How treat ADA, confiscation of amusemtpark?

3. Kant: conflicting categorical impo?

• What if performance of promise illegal?

4. Kant: must you tell truth to terrorist (prey in closet?)

• or: K bankrupts promisor w/negligible benefit

Problem 9B: organ donor, commute death sentence? 

GeneralJustificationsofSentence1. deterrence: general or specific (Beccaria)

2. incapacitation (J.Q. Wilson)

3. rehabilitation (Medical model?)

4. retribution: “justice” (or “revenge”?)(Kant)

a. proportionality to blameworthiness (Kant)

b. victims, upright people, etc. (Durkheim)

c. uniformity

Problem 9C (long sentences to stop crime? 3

1/15/2016

17

UnitedStatesv.Bergman‐‐4 months/prison

‐‐the “4 factors”: rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, retribution

‐‐probation or prison?

‐‐“measuring” the sentence

1. goal inconsistencies

2. “have you ever . . . prison? / nursing home?”

3. “disparity”

UnitedStatesv.Olis

‐‐original 24‐year sentence under (mandatory) guidelines

‐‐reduced to 6 years; financial loss, huge

‐‐the 4 factors: rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, retribution

‐‐measuring the sentence? Contrast to Bergman?

SentenceOptions1. Probation: conditions; usual v. additional 

confinement; community service

“Community corrections”

Eligibility; nonqualifying offenses and circumstances

Problem 9F (sign)

Revocation—preponderance; no jury; indictment, or

crime required; Problem 9G (polygraph)

SentenceOptions2. Fines, restitution, diversion—State v. Curry

3. Incarceration

parole issues; parole limits: McDermottv. McDonald

(due process—but very little)

enhancements, e.g. Tx. 12.42(c) (1 prior)

Tx. 12.42(d) (2 priors)

4. Civil remedies

SentencingHearingTx, can be judge, or

1. jury election: when elect? good law?

2. the process: jury gets relevant evid

Including crim record; character; and

Unadjudicated offenses

Consider Williams v. N.Y. (broad)

SentencingHearingFederal: judge sentences

Fed j must get a PSI

Should D submit to interview?

“hearing”: can be papers only? D can

object in writing; may use affidavits

1/15/2016

18

SentencingHearingcont’d1. broad‐range discretn

[indeterminate sentence]

2. determinate

a. mandatory?

b. Intermediate?

narrowed range; factors determine;

guidelines only, etc.

c. charge, bargaining, parole too?

IssuesinDeterminateSentencing1. complexity/confusion 

2. discretionary better?

3. distortion and cost 

4. plea bargaining

5. right to jury trial 

6. sentencing goals

8. preserving the right level/discretion

9. hardest cases: conflicting goals

TheFederalSentenceGuidelines1. base offense level 2. relevant conduct

3. specific offense characteristics

4. adjustments

a. victim‐related b. role in the offense

c. obstruction d. multiple counts

e. acceptance of responsibility

5. criminal history category

6. sentencing table

7. departure 8. probation; mandatory max/min

GuidelineInterpretation(What’s“obstruction”?What’sa“manager”?)Preponderance std—why? Due process? Rtto jury? why?

Calculatn in Geevers case:

1. no rules/evi—but note that it’s advisory only 4. degree/precision

2. tables 5. is this “preponderance”?

3. estimate 6. proportionality?

Simulations10‐12Simulation Exercise 10: sentencing in robbery/rape case

Simulation Exercise 11: Bubba shot the Juke Box

1. Bubba shot the juke box; $ 10,000 loss, prior conviction    3 years—figuring the sentence

Base offense level; relevant conduct; specific offense characteristics; adjustments; criminal history category; sentencing table; departure; probation or mandatory minimum/maximum

Simulations10‐12

Simulation Exercise 11 (cont): Bubba shot the Juke Box

2. Bubba also shoots & kills bar owner; voluntary mansl.

3. Critiquing guidelines vs. discretion

Simulation Exercise 12: Smith PSI

1/15/2016

19

Greggv.Georgia

Death penalty goals of deterrence, justice

1. incapacitation, too?

2. should rehabilitation be a factor?

3. arguments against?

CapitalMurder,§19.03

“murder‐plus”

[2/3 are robbery‐murders]

sentence hearing

relevant evid except excluded/Constitution

3 questions: Violence, Anticipation, Mitigation

Burden/proof

DeathPenalty

Against death p:

1. barbarism?

2. innocence errors?

3. causes murders?

4. race discrim?

5. blameworthiness errors?

Pro death p:

1. deterrence?

2. incapacitation?

3. justice?

10.Inchoate(Preparatory)OffensesAttempt

Four types

try & fail, interrupt, mistake, desistance

Elements:

a. specific intent—Problem 10A (bottle)

10.Inchoate(Preparatory)Offenses

b. sufficient act—United States v. Williamson,

attempted assault?

(1) substantial step;

(2) more than prep; 

(3) others

Tx: § 15.01 (more than mere preparation)

Attempt“defenses”

1. renunciation

•voluntary, complete

•avoid/commission

1/15/2016

20

Attempt“defenses”

2. impossibility

a. “factual”—NO

b. “false legal”—NO

c. true legal—YES

d. inherent‐‐?—Problem 10B (HIV)

CriminalInstruments

•§ 16.01—rare if ever?

•solicitation, § 15.03—

•special corroboration reqmt

•Ganesan v. State (murder solicitation)

Conspiracy

1. 2+ people, agreemt, purpose/intent/promote, felony/crime, overt act—State v. Pacheo(deputy murder plan)

2. agreemt: how formal? To do what?—Falcone & Direct Sales

3. intent to promote

Conspiracy

4. mens rea: is knowlg enough?

5. overt act: can it be innocent (noncrime)?

6. Tx § 15.02—Problem 10E (ABCD distributing heroin)

7. renunciation

11.VicariousLiability(MultipleParties)

Vicarious Liability ‐ Federal

[guilt based on acts of another]

1. usual rules: aid & abet or aid & encourage

11.VicariousLiability(MultipleParties)

2. Pinkerton liability; also, TX 7.02(b)

a. based on consp

b. but liab is for completed crime

c. agency basis

d. scope, furtherance 

e.     foreseeability

‐‐Problem 11A: prostitution; extent?

1/15/2016

21

MultipleParties

1. common l: principal 1st, 2d; accessory before, after

2. federal: aid & abet

•how much aid?—People v. Moore (firearm encouragemt)

4. mens rea?

5. Texas: “parties”—next slide

Texas“Parties”

1. Tx. 7.02(a)

a. culpable mental, nonresponsibleagent

b. intent/promote, aid, encourage, etc.

•Rivera v. State (shoot/stab); Prob. 11B (map)

c. duty/prevent, etc.

2. 702(b) – Like Pinkerton

3. Post‐crime liability: hindering, 38.05a; tampering, 36.05

4. Corporate: 7.22‐24, for usual felony, reckless toleration, high managerial agent; diligence defense

5. Individuals: “throwdown prisoners”?

RICOElements‐‐civil (treble damages) & criminal

1. assoc/enterprise 2. interstate comm

3. conduct/participate 4. enterprise affairs

5. pattern/racketeering, meaning—

a. at least 2 b. named crimes

c. w/in 10 yr. d. Continuous

e. related Sedima v. Imrex (inflated)

RICO forfeiture: interest acquiredor maintained in violatn—Note 2 on DeFries case

12.ContrabandOffenses;Terrorismcontrolled substances: Tx.

1.       schedules                5. Manufacture (def’n)

2.       registration             6. Delivery (def’n)

3.       precursor reports  7. Possn w/ intent (def)

4.       penalty groups       8. Possession

1. e.g., heroin          ‐‐Problem 12B (roofie)

1A. LSD             ‐‐Webb v. State (possn?)

2. e.g., psylocibin

3. e.g., barbiturates

4. e.g., “Robo”

1/15/2016

22

Possession

1.     “actual care, custody, control, mgmt”

2.     mens rea: intent/knowl

3.     evidence sufficiency

a. personal possession

[b. negate others?]

c. close proximity

d. recent use

e. occupancy

Terrorism

•The enactments

•Amendments

•Problem 12H, bomb advice

•Not covered: combatants, etc.

13.Criminalization:Legitimacy1. notice? (fair warning)—Rogers v. Tennessee; People v. Kevorkian

2.  Rule of Lenity—Note 4, United States v. Sykes, armed career criminal

3. definition?: “reas people not have to guess”

a. citizens, complying

b. law enf, arrest

c. judge/jury, adjudicate—Lanzetta(gangster); Nash (matter of degree; how close?)

4. Ex post facto:

Common law crime?

Construe strictly against govt?

Can court interpret? evolve?

Crime, harm—& justification: notes at 8‐10

Problem 1A (helmet law; conflictgargumts)

14.Perspectives

non‐criminal remedies

I. forfeiture: (a) basis & extent; (b) is it really civil

II. licensing

III. other—e.g., precursors

IV. preventive detention/civil commitment

Non‐criminalRemediescont’d.Also: 

1. architecture

2. behavior modification

3. transportation

4. pvt security and suits

5. civil/admin penalties

6. police prevention

7. mediation; confrontation

8. the economy; societal

9. quality‐of‐life

10. social spending

11. decriminalization

1/15/2016

23

Victims’/Survivors’Issues

A. compensation

B. notice, information, warning, protection

C. participation

D. justice; resolution

E. solidarity; understanding

F. crime defn; process; humane treatment

G. official liability

H. offender confrontation

CourthouseLanguageaboutGuiltyPleas

“They offered that tush hog Billy Ray Bonebreaker a dime, but he never sensed how much of a whale he was, and so he rolled the dice & got popped for ninety‐nine rodeos.”

‐‐what does this mean about trials versus guilty pleas?

Settlement1. the case against settlement

2. the case for settlement

(Does the case against settlement depend on an unspoken assumption that conviction in a single trial by a single jury is absolutely accurate or universally authoritative, & conviction by plea of guilty is not? Is it true?)

Gross/Seyverud’s Analysis1. jury trial = scarce resource.

2. not to be wasted.

3. far scarcer than believed.

4. settlement = norm. 97 %?

5. adjudicatn = rare xceptn.

6. usually adjudicatn = disaster for at least 1 pty.

7. why so few jury trials?

8. why does a trial result?

9. reform?

10.  yr role as “trial” lawyer?

WhySettlement?

12 judges, 30,000 indictmts= less than 5 min. per case at most.•“solutions”?

1.  screening; selectivity?2. more courts?3. decriminalization? diversion?4. reform (radically alter jury 

trials)?5. regard settlement as acceptable?

DebatableIssues

• should plea offers be the same for all parties(?)

• executive discretion—Newman v. United States

• “choose one to plead guilty—either one”(?)

• “only if all plead guilty”(?)

• how to prevent guilty pleas that are wrong(?)

• attempts to outlaw/avoid plea bargaining(?)

1/15/2016

24

GuiltyPleaProcess•Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; Tex. Code Crim. P.

1.written waiver

2.written approval

3. Evidence

4. Admonitions

5. Voluntariness

•Tullos v. State:

• indictmt=threatened, but stipulation=stabbed.

•2d case, admonition defective.