Criminal Law Markel Spring 2009[1]

Criminal Law Markel - Markel Criminal Law Outline Spring 2009 Table of Contents Overview of the Criminal Law Burden of Proof Appellate Review

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 Markel Criminal Law Outline Spring 2009 Table of Contents Overview of the Criminal Law Burden of Proof Appellate Review Standard Judge Control Jury Nullification Principles of Punishment Utilitarianism Retributivism Proportionality of Punishment Who Should be Punished? What Punishment (and How Much)? Proportionality of Punishment Theories Constitutionality of Punishment Principles of Legality CRIME ELEMENTS Actus Reus Mens Rea Strict Liability Offenses Mistake of Fact, Law Causation Actual Cause Proximate Cause Concurrence of the Elements INTENTIONAL KILLINGS Common Law Murder First Degree (P, M, D) Second Degree Felony Murder MPC Murder Common Law Manslaughter MPC Manslaughter DEFENSES Categories Justification Self-Defense Defense of Others Defense of Property Necessity Excuse Duress Intoxication Insanity Diminished Capacity INCHOATE CRIMES Attempt
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2 OVERVIEW OF THE CRIMINAL LAW · Seeks to 1) punish and 2) deter (specific, rehabilitation, general). · We impose punishment as an expression of condemnation for a particular act. · Criminal law involves sets of rules: o “Must not” and “must do” rules. o Conduct-guiding rules (don’t steal) and decision rules (you will be punished w/1 year in jail.) BURDEN OF PROOF · Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. o In re Winship : Supreme Court says it’s because we are trying to prevent more Type 1 errors (false positives—mistaken punishment or over punishment relative to comparable offenders/offenses) than Type 2 errors (false negatives—letting factually guilty person go free or underpunishment). (BRD: Enhanced risk that factually guilty people will be set free.) o Appellate Review Standard: Jackson v. Virginia : Due process requires gov’t to persuade the factfinder BRD of every fact (element) necessary to constitute the crime charged. The gov’t also has to negate possible defenses. Policy: Government given a terrible power, we should protect liberty at all costs. Owens v. State : O convicted of DUI by judge (no jury). Argues he wasn’t driving on public highway, which is required element of crime. · Rule: A conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. · Applying Jackson : Whether a reasonable factfinder could have found all the elements to be satisfied BRD. o Presume that the conflicting inferences were resolved at trial to benefit prosecution . · Holding: It was a rational conclusion for factfinder due to ancillary circumstances (presence of empties in the car, report of suspicious driving, etc). o Judge Control: Curly case: When a Δ makes a motion after prosecution rests case, if judge feels there reasonable minds would have to entertain a reasonable doubt , judge can take case away from the jury. Can only be used to benefit Δ (6
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 05/25/2011 for the course LAW Criminal L taught by Professor Markel during the Spring '11 term at FSU.

Page1 / 52

Criminal Law Markel - Markel Criminal Law Outline Spring 2009 Table of Contents Overview of the Criminal Law Burden of Proof Appellate Review

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