Cases Flashcards
People v. Du
Facts: Store owner D thought V was stealing OJ. Shot V in back of head when she was leaving (after placing OJ back).
Important: How much punishment? 7 Objectives of sentencing under CA law
Protect society
Punish the defendant for committing a crime
Encourage the defendant to lead a law abiding life
Deter others
Isolate the defendant so she can’t commit other crimes
Secure restitution for the victim
Seek uniformity in sentencing
Ewing v. California
Facts: D stole golf clubs. Sentenced 25 to life under CA 3 strikes law.
Important: Does this sentence violate 8th cruel and unusual?
Look at principles of proportionality. Defer to legislature (made 3 strikes).
To be 8th violation must be grossly disproportionate.
Held: not disproportionate
Dissent: comparing gravity, and sentences in same/other jur, not proportionate.
Commonwealth v. Mochan
MoCAN I hit it?
Facts: D keeps calling up shawty and talking real nasty to her. Charged under a blanket code "anything that is CL but not expressed here shall be an offense still" Important: Does this violate legality principles? Majority = yo this is a CL crime Dissent = Hol up, separation of powers. Until legislature says it is a crime, courts should not declare it as such.
Keeler v. Superior Court
Facts: kneed his pregnant ex to the point the baby died. Is this murder?
Important: since fetus
How does this case relate to the concept of legality?
Majority’s discussion of the constitutional obstacle to including the unlawful killing of a viable fetus in the statutory definition of “human being”
** Retroactive application of unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a criminal statute violates legality principle / corollary principles.
Disagreement about foreseeability among the majority and dissent
K(n)ee-her
In re Banks
Facts: Peeping Tom statute. Is it unconstitutionally vague?
Held: no – statutory language is sufficiently definite.
Important: in re Banks method of analysis and tools of interpretation
Presumption of constitutionality; NC precedent interpreting statute; principle against redundancy; don’t want the statute to sweep over broadly and capture legitimate conduct.
Desertain v. City of LA
Facts: Statute making living in car overnight in city illegal. Is it unconstitutionally vague?
Held: yes.
Fails to provide fair notice (legality corollary principle statutes should be understandable)
Promotes arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement (legality corollary principle regarding delegation to enforce.
Martin v. State
Facts: statute = any person who is drunk and appears in public place violates. Police arrest Martin take him to highway, then charge him under the statute. Was there a voluntary act?
Held: no. Appears = voluntary.
Important: Courts interpret statutory language in line with the voluntary act requirement.
State v. Utter
Facts: PTSD dad stabs and kills son. TC said conditioned response cannot be a defense.
Held: wrong, conditioned response can be a defense to voluntary act, but there was not enough evidence to support a conditioned response, so the result is right.
Important: meaning of act is voluntary and consciously.
People v. Decina
People v. Decina
Facts: Seizure while driving kills kids.
Important: time framing can determine whether a voluntary act is found.
People v. Nelson
Turrets syndrome - calls this grandma sexually a bunch. Can’t stop.
Important: time framing can determine whether a voluntary act is found.
Robinson v. California
Illegal to be addicted to narcotics.
Held: unconstitutional bc status offense.
Powell
Illegal to be drunk in public place
Held: not unconstitutional since there is a tiny act (appear in Maritn)
People v. Beardsley
Mistress off da percs. Did homie’s failure to act constitute a criminal omission?
Held: no. Moral obligation is not the same as legal duty; not married; no assumption of care or control.
)
BeardSLAYYY (mistress)
Regina v. Cunningham
Dude down bad takes meter off gas thing for coins. Statute says “Maliciously.” TC= this means wicked.
Held: nah dawg. Malicious = intentional or grossly reckless
People v. Conley
High school drunk party fight? Statute says intentionally or knowingly cause great bodily harm or permanently disable. D says cant be convicted bc although he intended to cause harm, he didn’t mean to permanently disfigure.
Held: yes u did.
Important: Intent can be inferred from the sounding circumstances (IL only uses purpose prong of intent).
One intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions
State v. Nations
16 year old stripper.
Why didn’t courts apply willful blindness doctrine? MO doesn’t have it lol. Knowingly doesn’t encompass willful blindness in MO
State v. Miles
Drug trafficking but didn’t know what kind of drugs they were… willful blindness.
Important: mens rea terms apply going forward, but not a hard and fast rule. Most important thing is figuring out and sticking to legislative intent.
“Drug trafficking for Miles”
Morrissette v. US
Dude takes home military bomb casings he found that had been there for years. Gov tried to argue it was strict liability to steal against gov since no mens rea in statute.
Held: not strict liability bc legislative history does not contain indication that congress intended to eliminate mens rea
Staples v. US
Guy didn’t know his gun had been altered to be fully auto. Strict liability?
Held: no. Look at how harsh the penalty is, guns are not so dangerous that they put owners on notice of public danger.
Dissent: these aren’t just guns, they are very dangerous to public (disagree about danger to public).
State v. Garnett
Mentally challenged dude has sex with consenting mentally challenged underage girl. Statutory rape.
Held: strict liability… can’t avoid on the basis of disability.
Dissent is like yo we can’t just have unconscious people get charged with rape (but he forgets the voluntary act requirement)
People v. Navarro
Dude took wood from construction site thinking they were abandoned. TC jury instructions to acquit.
Important: mistake of fact common law (common law flowchart)
Held: theft under the statute is specific intent crime
People v. Marrero
Arrested for pistol. Thought he qualified as a peace officer since he was a prison guard.
Important: mistake of understanding of statute does not excuse him from liability.
Majority and dissent disagree about legislative intent
Lambert v. California
Fails to register as criminal offender
Why is this situation different than other mistake of law?
Punishes omission rather than affirmative act
Duty to act based on status
Malum prohibitum (not inherently wrong)
Cheek v. US
Dude actually believed tax laws were unconstitutional so he didn’t have to pay them.
Important: general mistake of law rule (not a defense) exception: a GOOD FAITH belief that one is not violating the law does not have to be reasonable to negate willfulness.
Willfully = voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty
Oxendine v. State
Girlfriend beat son lethally. 12 hours later dad beat son. Son dies.
Important: aggravation without acceleration is insufficient to establish causation.
People v. Rideout
Drunk diving friends get in wreck. After they both get to safety and check on the other driver, friend goes back out into the road and gets hit and killed. Driver charged with murder.
Important = not a proximate cause (foreseeability, apparent safety doctrine, voluntary human intervention)
Velazquez v. State
Street racing one dude dies. Charge the other car driver with murder.
Important: not the proximate cause – free, deliberate and informed human intervention
Sounds like engine noises
