LexisNexis Capsule SummaryCriminal LawWord文件下载.docx
《LexisNexis Capsule SummaryCriminal LawWord文件下载.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《LexisNexis Capsule SummaryCriminal LawWord文件下载.docx(57页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
§
1.01TheoriesofCriminalPunishment
[A]Utilitarianism
[1]Deterrence–Theutilitariantheoryisessentiallyoneofdeterrence–punishmentisjustifiableif,butonlyif,itisexpectedtoresultinareductionofcrime.Punishmentmustbeproportionaltothecrime,i.e.,thatpunishmentbeinflictedintheamountrequired(butnomorethanisrequired)tosatisfyutilitariancrimepreventiongoals.
Utilitariansconsidertheeffectofaformofpunishmentintermsofbothgeneraldeterrenceandspecific(orindividual)deterrence.Whenthegoalisgeneraldeterrence,punishmentisimposedinordertodissuadethecommunityatlargetoforegocriminalconductinthefuture.Whenthegoalisspecificdeterrence,punishmentismeanttodeterfuturemisconductbyanindividualdefendantbybothpreventinghimfromcommittingcrimesagainstsocietyduringtheperiodofhisincarceration(incapacitation),andreinforcingtohimtheconsequencesoffuturecrimes(intimidation).
[2]Rehabilitation–Anotherformofutilitarianismisrehabilitation(orreform).Examplesofrehabilitative“punishment”include:
psychiatriccare,therapyfordrugaddiction,oracademicorvocationaltraining.
[B]Retributivism–Underaretributivetheoryofpenallaw,aconvicteddefendantispunishedsimplybecausehedeservesit.Thereisnoexteriormotivesuchasdeterringothersfromcrimeorprotectingsociety–herethegoalistomakethedefendantsufferinordertopayforhiscrime.Retributivetheoryassignspunishmentonaproportionalbasissothatcrimesthatcausegreaterharmorarecommittedwithahigherdegreeofculpability(e.g.,intentionalversusnegligent)receivemoreseverepunishmentthanlessercriminalactivity.
[C]Denunciation(ExpressiveTheory)–Thedenunciationtheory–whichholdsthatpunishmentisjustifiedasameansofexpressingsociety’scondemnationofacrime–hasbothutilitarianandretributivecomponents.Underautilitariantheory,denunciationisdesirablebecauseiteducatesindividualsthatthecommunityconsidersspecificconductimproper,channelscommunityangerawayfrompersonalvengeance,andservestomaintainsocialcohesion.Underaretributivetheory,denunciationservestopunishthedefendantbystigmatizinghim.
1.02SourcesofCriminalLaw
[A]CommonLaw–Commonlawisjudge-madelaw.Evenwhensupercededbystatutorylaw,commonlawmayservetointerpretambiguousstatutoryterms.
[B]CriminalStatutes–Today,statutorylawistheprevailingsourceofcriminallawandessentiallyhasreplacedcommonlaw.Althoughmoststateshaveabolishedcommonlawcrimes,afewhaveenacted“reception”statutes,expresslyrecognizingcommonlawoffenseswhenstatutorylawdoesnotprovideapunishmentforsuchoffense.Ineffect,suchastatute“receives”thecommonlawoffensesinplaceatthetimeofthestatute’senactment.
Generallyspeaking,statutorylawclassifiesacrimeasafelonyoramisdemeanor,bothofwhichmaybesubdividedintodegrees.Afelonyispunishablebydeathorimprisonmentinastateorfederalprison.Themaximumpunishmentforamisdemeanorisamonetaryfine,incarcerationinalocaljail,orboth.Somejurisdictionsalsohaveanadditionalclassificationof“violation”or“infraction”forwhichonlyamonetaryfineisauthorized.
[C]ModelPenalCode–AlthoughtheCode–publishedbytheAmericanLawInstitute–isnotthelawinanyjurisdiction,itstimulatedadoptionofrevisedpenalcodesinatleastthirty-sevenstates.AlthoughsomestatelegislatureshaveadoptedonlysmallportionsoftheModelCodeastheirown,otherjurisdictions(includingNewJersey,NewYork,Pennsylvania,andOregon)haveenactedmanyofitsprovisions.Courts,ontheirown,sometimesturntotheModelCodeanditssupportingcommentariesforguidanceininterpretingnon-Codecriminalstatutes.
1.03ConstitutionalLimitationsonCriminalLaw
VariousprovisionsoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionimposelimitsonfederalandstatelegislativeaction.Astatelegislatureisalsolimitedbyitsownstateconstitution,whichmayplacegreaterrestrictionsonitthandoesthefederalConstitution.
[A]LimitsonFederalAction–The“BillofRights”restrictsthepowerofthefederalgovernmentinitsrelationshiptoindividuals.
[B]LimitsonStateAction–TheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionimposeslimitsonstategovernment.The14thAmendment:
(1)prohibitsstatesfrommakingorenforcing“anylawwhichshallabridgetheprivilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates”
(2)“depriveanypersonoflife,liberty,orpropertywithoutdueprocessofthelaw;
”or
(3)“denytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthelaws.”
1.04Legality
[A]CommonLaw–Apersonmaynotbepunishedunlesshisconductwasdefinedascriminalatthetimeofcommissionoftheoffense.Thisprohibitiononretroactivecriminallawmakingconstitutestheessenceoftheprincipleoflegality.
Therearethreeinterrelatedcorollariestothelegalityprinciple:
(1)Criminalstatutesshouldbeunderstandabletoreasonablelaw-abidingpersons.Acriminalstatutemustgive“sufficientwarningtomenofcommonintelligenceastowhatconductisunlawful.”Apersonisdenieddueprocessoflawifheisconvictedandpunishedforviolationofastatutethatlackssuchclarity.
(2)Criminalstatutesshouldnotdelegatebasicpolicymatterstopoliceofficers,judges,andjuriesforresolutiononanadhocandsubjectivebasis.
(3)Judicialinterpretationofambiguousstatutesshould“bebiasedinfavoroftheaccused”(thelenitydoctrine).
[B]ModelCode–TheModelPenalCodedoesnotrecognizethelenityprinciple.Section1.02(3)requiresinsteadthatambiguitiesberesolvedinamannerthatfurthersthegeneralpurposesoftheCodeandthespecificprovisionatissue.
Chapter2
GENERALPRINCIPLESINCRIMINALTRIALS
2.01JuryTrials
[A]RighttoTrialbyJury–Therighttoajurytrialonlyappliesto“non-petty”offenses,generallydeemedtobeoffensespunishablebyimprisonmentformorethansixmonths.[Baldwinv.NewYork,399U.S.66,69(1970)]Offensesforwhichthemaximumtermofimprisonmentauthorizedbylawissixmonthsorlessmayalsobedeemed“non-petty”ifadditionalavailablestatutorypenalties(includingfines)“aresoseverethattheyclearlyreflectalegislativedeterminationthattheoffenseinquestionisa‘serious’one.”[Blantonv.CityofNorthLasVegas,489U.S.538,543(1989)]
[B]RequiredNumberofJurors–Althoughajurycomposedofasfewassixpersonsisconstitutional[Williamsv.Florida,399U.S.78(1970)],thecurrentrequirementinfederalcriminaltrialsisthatajurymustbecomposedoftwelvepersons[Fed.R.Crim.P.23(a)]Manystateslikewiserequirea12-personjuryincriminaltrials.
[C]NumberofJurorsNeededtoAcquitorConvict–Statelawspermittingnon-unanimousverdictsarepermissible,aslongasthevotetoconvictrepresentsa“substantialmajority”ofthejurors[Johnsonv.Louisiana,406U.S.356(1972)],butinfederalcriminaltrials,averdicttoconvictoracquitmustbeunanimous.[Fed.R.Crim.P.31(a)]
[D]JuryNullification–Ajuryhasthepowertoreturnaverdictofacquittaleventhoughthejurybelievesthatthedefendantislegallyguiltyofanoffense.Thismightoccurifthejurybelievesthatthecriminalstatuteisimmoralorunjust,thatthedefendanthasbeen“punishedenough”already,orthatthepoliceorprosecutorsmisbehavedinsomemanner.
2.02BurdensofProof
Thefact-findingprocessimposestwotypesofburdensofproof:
(1)theburdenofproduction(sometimescalledthe“burdenofgoingforward(withevidence)”);
and
(2)theburdenofpersuasion.
[A]BurdenofProduction
[1]ProsecutionBurdenofProduction–Priortotrialtheprosecutionmustfileadocumentwiththecourtthatindicatesthecrimeorcrimesitbelievesthatthedefendanthascommitted.Thisdocumentprovidestheaccusedwithnoticeoftheessentialelementsoftheoffense(s)charged,andthebasicfactsthattheprosecutorintendstoproveattrialtosupporthisallegationthatthedefendantcommittedthecrime(s).Theprosecutormustproduceenoughevidencethatarationaltrier-of-factmayfairlydeterminethattheelementsofthecrimehavebeenprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt.
Ifthejudgeconcludesthattheprosecutorfailedtosatisfytheburdenofproductionregardinganyelementoftheoffensecharged,thedefendantisentitledtoadirectedverdictofacquittalattheconclusionoftheprosecutor’scase-in-chieforattheendofthetrial.Iftheprosecutorfailedtointroduceenoughevidencetosupportajuryfindingbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthedefendantcommittedthecrime,thereisnoreasonforittodeliberateonthematter.
[2]Defendant’sBurdenofProduction–Thedefendantissometimesrequiredtoprovideadvancenoticetotheprosecutionofdefensesheintendstoassertattrial.Theamountofevidencerequiredtosatisfytheburdenofproductiononaffirmativedefensesvariesbyjurisdictions.Insomejurisdictionsthedefendantmeetshisburdenofproduction(and,thus,isentitledtoaninstructiontothejuryonthedefense)ifheproducesmorethana“scintillaofevidence”regardinganaffirmativedefense;
inotherjurisdictionsthedefendantmustintroduceenoughevidencetoraiseareasonabledoubtontheissueofthedefenseclaimed.
Ifthedefendantfailstomeethisburdenofproductionregardinganaffirmativedefense,thejudgewillnotinstructthejuryonthelawpertainingtothedefense,andthedefendantisnotentitl