CRIM LAW OUTLINE - This is the html version of the file...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the html version of the file . G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: l a Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this pag e These search terms have been highlighted: commonwealth v almeida 1185 Criminal Law Outline 11-2-2003 Status vs. Act distinction Cases : Robinson v. California : Cannot convict an individual for the “status” of addiction This would violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause. Concurring: Punishment for addiction was like punishing for the mere desire to commit a crime. States cannot punish for status’s just acts. Can “treat” for status Powell v. Texas : Majority Decision: The drunkenness was not the issue, the issue was the act of being drunk in public, which creates a safety issue. Sexually Dangerous Persons (Kansas v. Crane ): Rehabilitated status SC said you have to show that they have “extreme difficulty” controlling. Volitional vs. Non-volitional Duress – threat coming in from someone else Acts done under the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, where there is both reasonable cause to believe and actual belief that such harm is threatened will be excused. Excuses any crime less than murder Model Penal Code: It is an affirmative defense that the actor engaged in conduct because he was coerced to do so by the use of, or a threat to use unlawful force against his person or the person of another which a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
The defense is unavailable if the actor recklessly placed himself in the situation in which it was probable that he was negligent in placing himself in such a situation, whenever negligence suffices for culpability Note that under the duress sections, if another person threatens to kill you unless you kill two others, and you kill them, you may be excused. Query why the defendant is excused here and not under the section on necessity. Cases : State v. St. Clair : Duress is an acceptable defense for criminal activity. Duress shows a non-volitional act. No reasonable opportunity to avoid committing crime Bailey : Majority: Duress within the prison might have justified escape but not the staying at large, which is a continuing offense. Blackburn’s Dissent: No need to show attempt to turn oneself in The conditions justifying escape would apply to staying at large as well. Jury should have heard questions of credibility of
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/30/2008 for the course CRIMINAL L 101 taught by Professor Sm during the Fall '08 term at Florida Coastal School of Law.

Page1 / 28

CRIM LAW OUTLINE - This is the html version of the file...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online