|
|
|||||
|
|
|
I. Themes
a) Elements of a Crime 1. Mens Rea—Intent 2. Actus Reus—Criminal Act: (a) punishable b/c it’s wrong, (b) limited by substantive due process (what can be enforced). Voluntary vs. Free will.
b) The traditional anchor of criminal law is fault (ie. when a person is blameworthy). The traditional approach is moral retribution. The modern approach is utilitarian—what is best for society? Should we punish people even if they have no control? All the cases have this tension.
c) We can also justify punishing someone b/c they are prone to commit a crime. (punishing future crimes)
d) Traditional parameters of a crime are : (1) wrong, (2) voluntary, (3) past crime, (4) act of conduct, (5) Notice that it’s illegal (due process). This infers that an innocent person does not meet either 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Is this still true?
II. Actus Reus
a) Protctor v. State (1918) 1. Issue: Was a crime committed if ∆ intended to sell liquor illegally but did not physically do it? 2. Holding: No, There must be an improper overt act to be criminal. Without an act, there’s no evidence. Also, if there’s no clear line between thought and action defined by statute, there’s improper notice. 3. Is possession considered an ‘act?’ No, possession is defined as to “have under one’s control.” 4. Can a failure to act (omission) be criminalized? A: Yes, if there must be a duty to act (ex: parent to feed children) or a substitute. There is a fine line between this duty and an innocent bystander. (Can you charge the filmmaker of Rodney King?) 5. HYPO #3, pg. 124—Spectators watch child drown in a pool. Who has a duty?
b) People v. Grant (1977) 1. Issue: What’s the line between insanity v. involuntary action? Did ∏ have a seizure at the time he struck the officer? 2. Under this holding, sleepwalking would not be a crime. Holding: There must be WILFUL ACTION and WILFUL CONDUCT. This doesn’t necessarily mean free will. 3. In Robinson v. California, you can’t punish a person b/c he is an addict. This is b/c addiction is an illness and may not have been acquired through their fault (ex: born with it). Also, this would be a status offense—punishing people for who they are, not what they’ve done. 4. In Powell v. Texas, ∏ claims he shouldn’t be punished for public drunkenness b/c alcoholism is a disease. ∆ tried to convince ct that drunkenness is not a moral sin→instead, it’s a medical condition. 5. **Are Robinson and Powell consistent? It depends on the ideas of whether our norms and values are based on moral ideas and notions of fault or the utilitarian pragmatic approach. 6. The state’s broadest holding of Powell is that Robinson only reaches status but not conduct. All conduct is fair game under 8A. There is not a distinction between voluntary and involuntary conduct. The narrow reading is that Powell deals with voluntary conduct and alcoholism is punished. 7. HYPO: What is the alcoholic was homeless? 8. In Pottinger v. City of Miami (pg. 141), homeless people are arrested for improper conduct. The ct considered homelessness to be a STATUS, alcoholism to be a disease, and public drunkenness to be a voluntary act by choice. 9. How does homelessness in Pottinger differ from alcoholism in Powell? Do we not want to punish homelessness b/c they’re poverty-stricken and probably minorities? 10. In Joyce v. San Francisco (pg. 142), homelessness is not a status like age or race. It’s a condition b/c acts of social intervention can change the condition.
c) Johnson v. State (1992) 1. Facts: After baby is born, mother takes cocaine during 60-90 seconds while umbilical cord is still attached. 2. The ct focuses on window of time and asks whether the statute is targeting the delivery or something greater. 3. Issue: What’s the criminal act? The mother is not prosecuted for drug use; rather, the delivery of drugs to the baby. 4. **Teach says the issue is whether ‘delivery’ includes the time before the umbilical cord is cut? Also, can you criminalize involuntary acts? Are they punishing the mother b/c of the status of being pregnant and/or drug addict. Also, there is an issue of notice. Did she know it was a crime? 5. Can you punish pregnant drug addicts? Notions of accountability say yes. Can you prosecute someone for harming a fetus? Is it a person? 6. Is she being punished for a sin or a crime? Crime is a codified sin. But not all sins are crimes. This case quotes scripture, which further clouds the issue. 7. Can someone be punished for something wrong that the legislature hasn’t criminalized it? A: No notice. Also, it’s not the role of the cts to make the laws b/c of separation of powers and judicial restraint. (“Legality”)
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
