LexisNexis Capsule SummaryCriminal Law.docx

1、LexisNexis Capsule Summary Criminal LawLexisNexis Capsule SummaryCriminal LawChapter 1THEORY, SOURCES, AND LIMITATIONS OF CRIMINAL LAW 1.01 Theories of Criminal Punishment A Utilitarianism1 Deterrence The utilitarian theory is essentially one of deterrence punishment is justifiable if, but only if,

2、it is expected to result in a reduction of crime. Punishment must be proportional to the crime, i.e., that punishment be inflicted in the amount required (but no more than is required) to satisfy utilitarian crime prevention goals.Utilitarians consider the effect of a form of punishment in terms of

3、both general deterrence and specific (or individual) deterrence. When the goal is general deterrence, punishment is imposed in order to dissuade the community at large to forego criminal conduct in the future. When the goal is specific deterrence, punishment is meant to deter future misconduct by an

4、 individual defendant by both preventing him from committing crimes against society during the period of his incarceration (incapacitation), and reinforcing to him the consequences of future crimes (intimidation).2 Rehabilitation Another form of utilitarianism is rehabilitation (or reform). Examples

5、 of rehabilitative “punishment” include: psychiatric care, therapy for drug addiction, or academic or vocational training.B Retributivism Under a retributive theory of penal law, a convicted defendant is punished simply because he deserves it. There is no exterior motive such as deterring others fro

6、m crime or protecting society here the goal is to make the defendant suffer in order to pay for his crime. Retributive theory assigns punishment on a proportional basis so that crimes that cause greater harm or are committed with a higher degree of culpability (e.g., intentional versus negligent) re

7、ceive more severe punishment than lesser criminal activity.C Denunciation (Expressive Theory) The denunciation theory which holds that punishment is justified as a means of expressing societys condemnation of a crime has both utilitarian and retributive components. Under a utilitarian theory, denunc

8、iation is desirable because it educates individuals that the community considers specific conduct improper, channels community anger away from personal vengeance, and serves to maintain social cohesion. Under a retributive theory, denunciation serves to punish the defendant by stigmatizing him. 1.02

9、 Sources of Criminal LawA Common Law Common law is judge-made law. Even when superceded by statutory law, common law may serve to interpret ambiguous statutory terms. B Criminal Statutes Today, statutory law is the prevailing source of criminal law and essentially has replaced common law. Although m

10、ost states have abolished common law crimes, a few have enacted “reception” statutes, expressly recognizing common law offenses when statutory law does not provide a punishment for such offense. In effect, such a statute “receives” the common law offenses in place at the time of the statutes enactme

11、nt. Generally speaking, statutory law classifies a crime as a felony or a misdemeanor, both of which may be subdivided into degrees. A felony is punishable by death or imprisonment in a state or federal prison. The maximum punishment for a misdemeanor is a monetary fine, incarceration in a local jai

12、l, or both. Some jurisdictions also have an additional classification of “violation” or “infraction” for which only a monetary fine is authorized. C Model Penal Code Although the Code published by the American Law Institute is not the law in any jurisdiction, it stimulated adoption of revised penal

13、codes in at least thirty-seven states. Although some state legislatures have adopted only small portions of the Model Code as their own, other jurisdictions (including New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Oregon) have enacted many of its provisions. Courts, on their own, sometimes turn to the Mod

14、el Code and its supporting commentaries for guidance in interpreting non-Code criminal statutes. 1.03 Constitutional Limitations on Criminal LawVarious provisions of the United States Constitution impose limits on federal and state legislative action. A state legislature is also limited by its own s

15、tate constitution, which may place greater restrictions on it than does the federal Constitution.A Limits on Federal Action The “Bill of Rights” restricts the power of the federal government in its relationship to individuals.B Limits on State Action The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Con

16、stitution imposes limits on state government. The 14th Amendment:(1) prohibits states from making or enforcing “any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” (2) “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law;” or(3) “den

17、y to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 1.04 LegalityA Common Law A person may not be punished unless his conduct was defined as criminal at the time of commission of the offense. This prohibition on retroactive criminal lawmaking constitutes the essence of the pri

18、nciple of legality.There are three interrelated corollaries to the legality principle:(1) Criminal statutes should be understandable to reasonable law-abiding persons. A criminal statute must give “sufficient warning to men of common intelligence as to what conduct is unlawful.” A person is denied d

19、ue process of law if he is convicted and punished for violation of a statute that lacks such clarity. (2) Criminal statutes should not delegate basic policy matters to police officers, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis. (3) Judicial interpretation of ambiguous statu

20、tes should “be biased in favor of the accused” (the lenity doctrine). B Model Code The Model Penal Code does not recognize the lenity principle. Section 1.02(3) requires instead that ambiguities be resolved in a manner that furthers the general purposes of the Code and the specific provision at issu

21、e.Chapter 2GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS 2.01 Jury Trials A Right to Trial by Jury The right to a jury trial only applies to “non-petty” offenses, generally deemed to be offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than six months. Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 69 (1970) Offenses for whi

22、ch the maximum term of imprisonment authorized by law is six months or less may also be deemed “non-petty” if additional available statutory penalties (including fines) “are so severe that they clearly reflect a legislative determination that the offense in question is a serious one.” Blanton v. Cit

23、y of North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 543 (1989)B Required Number of Jurors Although a jury composed of as few as six persons is constitutional Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), the current requirement in federal criminal trials is that a jury must be composed of twelve persons Fed. R. Crim. P.

24、 23(a) Many states likewise require a 12-person jury in criminal trials.C Number of Jurors Needed to Acquit or Convict State laws permitting non-unanimous verdicts are permissible, as long as the vote to convict represents a “substantial majority” of the jurors Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (19

25、72), but in federal criminal trials, a verdict to convict or acquit must be unanimous. Fed. R. Crim. P. 31(a)D Jury Nullification A jury has the power to return a verdict of acquittal even though the jury believes that the defendant is legally guilty of an offense. This might occur if the jury belie

26、ves that the criminal statute is immoral or unjust, that the defendant has been “punished enough” already, or that the police or prosecutors misbehaved in some manner. 2.02 Burdens of ProofThe fact-finding process imposes two types of burdens of proof: (1) the burden of production (sometimes called

27、the “burden of going forward (with evidence)”); and (2) the burden of persuasion. A Burden of Production1 Prosecution Burden of Production Prior to trial the prosecution must file a document with the court that indicates the crime or crimes it believes that the defendant has committed. This document

28、 provides the accused with notice of the essential elements of the offense(s) charged, and the basic facts that the prosecutor intends to prove at trial to support his allegation that the defendant committed the crime(s). The prosecutor must produce enough evidence that a rational trier-of-fact may

29、fairly determine that the elements of the crime have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If the judge concludes that the prosecutor failed to satisfy the burden of production regarding any element of the offense charged, the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal at the conclusi

30、on of the prosecutors case-in-chief or at the end of the trial. If the prosecutor failed to introduce enough evidence to support a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, there is no reason for it to deliberate on the matter.2 Defendants Burden of Production Th

31、e defendant is sometimes required to provide advance notice to the prosecution of defenses he intends to assert at trial. The amount of evidence required to satisfy the burden of production on affirmative defenses varies by jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions the defendant meets his burden of produ

32、ction (and, thus, is entitled to an instruction to the jury on the defense) if he produces more than a “scintilla of evidence” regarding an affirmative defense; in other jurisdictions the defendant must introduce enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt on the issue of the defense claimed.If the defendant fails to meet his burden of production regarding an affirmative defense, the judge will not instruct the jury on the law pertaining to the defense, and the defendant is not entitl