Criminal Law Outline

ACTUS REUS: THE CRIMINAL ACT

1. The Voluntary Act Doctrine

   1. A crime requires an exercise of will

      1. Act is voluntary even if done due to threat, need, or coercion.

   2. Every actus reus defined within the crime must be voluntary

      1. Martin v. State: Public intoxication charge. D had voluntarily intoxicated himself, but was involuntarily brought in public by police. Not guilty.

      2. People v. Gastello: Bringing drugs into jail. D did not declare drugs when he was brought into jail for another charge. Coming to jail wasn’t voluntary (arrested for another crime), so not guilty.

         1. 5A consideration: D did not have to incriminate himself for drug charge in order to avoid the brining drugs into jail charge.

   3. Larger voluntary act can include some involuntary actions

      1. People v. Decina: D had epilepsy, got behind wheel, had seizure and ran over children. Voluntarily disregarding the risk of driving within his condition satisfied the requirement even though the crash was not.

         1. Mens rea of R/N toward act of getting in car

   4. Involuntary acts

      1. Physically Coerced Movement

         1. Ex: Someone takes your fist and hits someone with it

      2. Reflex Movement

         1. No liability for reflex actions triggered by action of another (scaring you, hitting your kneecap, spraying hot water, etc.)

      3. Disease-Related Movement

         1. Still liable for doing activities you know are dangerous because of your disease

      4. Unconsciousness

         1. Ex: Mother rolling onto baby in her sleep (still possible liability for reckless endangerment, etc.)

   5. MPC § 2.01

      1. Not guilty unless liability is based on conduct that is a voluntary act or omission to do something of which you are physically capable.

         1. Omission: must be proscribed by the MPC statute or there must be a duty to perform the omitted act imposed by law.

         2. Possession: requires knowing procurement of the thing OR knowing control of it for long enough to be able to terminate possession.

2. The Principle of Legality

   1. Nulla Poena Sine Lege: No penalty without a law.

      1. Forbids judicial (common law) creation of new crimes.

         1. Old crimes come from common law, but actors have advance specification of these

         2. Rex v. Manley: Woman made false reports to police and was convicted of “public mischief” which was a judge-made crime.

            1. Conviction goes against modern principle of legality.

      2. All British crimes up to 1776 are considered part of the “law”

   2. Legislative will is superior, but not dispositive

      1. Courts can overrule on constitutional grounds.

   3. Rationales for Principle of Legality

      1. Old: Deterrence. People needed to know what conduct was illegal.

         1. Matter of fairness: only can be punished for something already set forth.

         2. No longer works; criminals act not out of ignorance but because they believe they won’t be caught

            1. People also don’t read the law.

      2. Intermediate: balance of powers.

         1. Protect legislative supremacy

            1. As body most answerable to people, best fit to define crimes

         2. Prevent judges from abusing power

      3. Current: Control police and prosecutors

         1. If judges make law, police can try to persuade them to make new laws by making arrests

         2. Would allow police to arrest and hold anyone they want since theoretically some judge might find them guilty

         3. Invites abusive and arbitrary enforcement.

3. Vagueness Doctrine

   1. A vague law is unconstitutional if:

      1. If gives insufficient fair warning

      2. Its lack of specificity creates opportunity for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement

         1. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham: Statute cast net so wide it gave police police-state like powers.

   2. Balancing the Vagueness Doctrine

      1. Legislative Intent

         1. Courts cannot use doctrine to strike down statutes at will

      2. Specificity in the statutory construction

         1. E.g. Lanzetta v. New Jersey: No legislative direction on how the term “gangster” should be construed.

      3. Constitutional rights (due process of law)

      4. Foreseeability of judicial interpretation

         1. Saving Construction: Judges can save a vague law by interpreting it in a narrow light that does not facilitate arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

            1. Enforces statute in a constitutionally valid (due process) way

         2. E.g. Middlebrooks v. Birmingham: FILL IN

      5. Ability to enforce statute evenly

         1. Some statutes can’t be applied to everyone, or everyone would be in jail

         2. E.g. “street sweeping” vagrancy laws that could ensnare anyone, aimed at giving cops an excuse to arrest homeless people.

      6. Tolerability of Vagueness

         1. All statutes are vague to a degree

         2. Vagueness allows for enough flexibility in enforcement to prevent the criminals the law intends to catch from slipping through on technicalities.

   3. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville: Criminal statute must give people of ordinary intelligence fair notice of which acts are criminal

      1. D’s arrested under vagrancy laws which prohibited vague, undesirable acts

         1. Application problem: Net cast too wide; cops empowered to selectively enforce law to arrest anyone they choose

            1. Generally used against minorities

         2. Content problem: Made normal and innocent acts criminal to fulfill police goal of getting people into jail.

      2. Statute was too vague to satisfy Due Process Clause

4. Fair Notice and Unforeseeability

   1. Test for Fair Notice:

      1. Advance notice of what is criminal (principle of legality) (ex post facto law)

      2. Adequate specificity (vagueness doctrine)

      3. Appropriate judicial construction (ex post facto law)

         1. Violation of due process to construe otherwise valid statute in a way that is unforeseen.

            1. This creates ex post facto law.

   2. Unforeseeable Enlargement: State may not construe the law in a way that it extends beyond any reasonable interpretation of the written statute.

      1. Bouie v. City of Columbia: Blacks arrested for sitting at lunch counter. Charged under trespass statute designed to protect livestock from hunters. Violation of due process; no fair notice of enlargement.

      2. Rogers v.Tennessee: Reasonable enlargement. Court abandoned old common law “year and a day” requirement for death and used it convict D of murder (victim had died...

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