LexisNexis Capsule SummaryCriminal Law.docx

LexisNexis Capsule SummaryCriminal Law.docx

《LexisNexis Capsule SummaryCriminal Law.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《LexisNexis Capsule SummaryCriminal Law.docx（57页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

LexisNexisCapsuleSummaryCriminalLaw

LexisNexisCapsuleSummary

CriminalLaw

Chapter1

THEORY,SOURCES,ANDLIMITATIONSOFCRIMINALLAW

§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