Law Outlines Criminal Law Outlines
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.
All of the notes you will ever need for a Criminal Law final examination. Contains notes on cases, Restatements, statutes, the Constitution, and more....
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started