This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Criminal Law Outlines

Criminal Law Final Outline

Updated Criminal Law Final Outline Notes

Criminal Law Outlines

Criminal Law

Approximately 41 pages

All of the notes you will ever need for a Criminal Law final examination. Contains notes on cases, Restatements, statutes, the Constitution, and more....

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Elements of Just Punishment

Elements & Burdens and Presumptions

Elements of Just Punishment

  • Act = omission + duty or muscular motion §2.01

  • Voluntariness = choice + control (sleepwalking example is involuntary) §2.01

  • Fault = culpability – P, K,R.N §2.02

  • Wrongdoing = material elements of the crime §2.02(1)

    • Element charts of crimes

    • Categories of different elements (conduct, attendant circumstances, or result) should help separate the different elements of the crime

      • EX: Conduct (Distribute) Result (Cause Death) Attendant Cir. (controlled substance)

  • Causation = but for + legal causation (proximate cause) §2.03

  • Non Excuse

  • Non Justification

  • Concurrence = in one plausible time period

Burdens

  • Burden of Production – bringing new evidence for the case

  • Burdens of Persuasion – persuading the jury

    • With respect to guilt, prosecution has both burdens §2.02(1)

    • Justifications: burden or production is with defense, and burden of persuasion that there is NO justification is on the prosecution

    • Excuse: defense has burden of persuasion and production with this

  • Prosecution must prove all material elements of offense + all fault elements on offense

    • Looses if fails to prove even one of those things

  • Defense needs to disprove ONE elements of offense – either element or with justification

    • Just raise reasonable doubt for one element

  • Defense needs to provide excuse for offense

Presumptions

  • Permissive presumption – not a presumption at all, a permission to draw an inference

    • Defense has opportunity to raise RD

  • Mandatory presumption – requires jury to draw inference, but inference can be rebutted (raise RD)

    • Prosecution do element 1, inference element 2

      • Only constitutional if element 2, can be inferred as such in “the universe of all cases in general” – virtually all cases

  • Conclusive presumption – requires jury to infer and is not rebuttable

    • If the prosecutor proves element 1, jury must conclude element 2

    • This is unconstitutional

Due Process of Law

  • Due Process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Winship) §1.121(1)

  • Innocent until proven guilty – given the benefit of the doubt

  • If judge thinks there is no way that the jury could find the defendant guilty, he does “reasonable doubt as a matter of law” before it goes to jury

    • And if goes to the jury, need to give proper “reasonable doubt” instruction

  • Since the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and defenses by the defendant just have to show that 1% possibility that there was a doubt as to whether that happened (Mullaney)

  • Although if the prosecution has already proved a higher crime, defendant has burden of proving element lower crime by a preponderance of the evidence (Patterson)

  • In Re Winship

    • Facts:

      • Winship was found guilty in juvenile court of acts constituting larceny by a preponderance of the evidence

    • Holding:

      • Prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt + prosecution has to prove each and every element of the crime without a reasonable doubt

        • Facts need to be in line with each element beyond a reasonable doubt

    • Reasoning:

      • In order to reduce the risk convictions resting on factual error

      • Stakes are high – freedom/liberty + public stigma

  • Mullaney v. Wilbur

    • At defendant’s trial for murder based on malice, jury was instructed that the defendant had to rebut “malice” with “heat of passion” crime by a preponderance of evidence

    • SC held that the defendant’s due process rights were violated

      • Since prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, since this was one of the material elements of the crime, all the defendant had to do was to show that 1% doubt

      • No need to defend with preponderance

      • If you are going to equate the two, because one would negate the other

      • They are two sides of the same coin – element + defense of that element

  • Patterson v. New York

    • New York had different statutes for Murder and Manslaughter

    • Prosecution proved Murder, and if defense wants lower Manslaughter, he has the burden of proving Extreme Emotional Disturbance which is an element of Manslaughter – by a preponderance of the evidence

      • Why should prosecution prove anything for a lesser crime, if they have for higher crime

Model Penal Code

  • Prosecution has burden of proving culpability level (P, K, R, N) of each element of offense in order to establish liability §2.02(1)

  • Fill in the fault element based on 2.02(3) (when no mention=greater than R) but just once in the exam mention 2.02(4) (if mention a fault element prescribe it throughout. This is a defense)

    • Required level of Proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” §1.12(1)

Foundational Principles of Punishment

  • Legality

    • To give fair warning of the nature of the conduct declared to constitute an offense

  • Culpability

    • Safeguard conduct that is without fault from condemnation as criminal

  • Proportionality

    • To differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor offenses

Principles of Legality

Stringency of Criminal Law – Binding Effect of Law on Everyone

Value

(D’s argument)

No judge made law – Legislature does research on whole situation before making law No retrospective law-making Notice and opportunity

Specificity

(No vague statutes)

Acts not persons/status
Rationality Perspicacity (broader view) in law making Avoids temptation to tailor to each case Confidence to act; coordination Avoids abuse in enforcement

Generality in law

Freedom of consciousness

Law Separation of powers Ex post facto clause Due process clauses Due Process and 1st Amendment: overbreadth 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment)

Countervailing principles

(P’s argument)

But Necessity of interpretation – someone to interpret the law But adjudicative determination of norms as delegated by Leg. But general application requires broad terms But public safety, exigent circumstances But fault is sometimes a matter of character
Case Law Comm. v. Mochan – D charged with corruption of public morals, tailored law to make this a...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Law Outlines.