Cases and Holdings Flashcards
Proportionality of Punishment (Constitutional Principles)
Coker v. Georgia
Ewing v. California
Coker v. Georgia
F: Df escaped from prison, raped person during armed robbery, got DP due to aggravating circumstances.
H: 8th forbides DP for rape (grossly disproportionate).
Ewing v. California
F: Df got 3 strikes for grand theft, got 25tL.
H: 3 strikes does not violate 8th, serves legitimate goal of deterring and incapacitating repeat offenders.
Principle of Legality // Vagueness
Keeler v. Superior Court
City of Chicago v. Morales
Keeler v. Superior Court
F: Df stomped out ex-wife’s baby.
H: A person cannot be convicted for murder if the victim is an unborn fetus (life starts at birth).
City of Chicago v. Morales
F: Chicago’s Gang Congregation Ordinance was challenged.
H: A statute violates 14th DPC if it is “so vague and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits.”
Actus Reus (Voluntary Act)
Martin v. State
State v. Utter
State v. Golphin
Martin v. State
F: Cop took Df, who was drunk, and dropped him on a public highway, then arrested him for being drunk on a public highway.
H: A person must voluntarily commit the crime charged in order to be guilty.
State v. Utter
F: Df, a vet, stabbed son, claimed it was a conditioned response (was also drunk).
H: An act committed while unconscious is not voluntary. Voluntarily induced unconsciousness (drugs/booze) is not a complete defense.
Actus Reus (Status Offenses)
Robinson v. California
Powell v. Texas
Muscarello v. U.S.
Robinson v. California
F: Df was convicted under statute making it a criminal offense to be addicting to narcotics.
H: Law criminalizing a status violates 8th (cruel and unusual punishment).
Powell v. Texas
F: Df charged with being drunk in public. Claimed status offense.
H: Punishing alcoholic for being drunk in public doesn’t violate 8th.
Actus Reus (Possession, Omissions, Causation)
U.S. v. Kitchen People v. Beardsley Barber v. Superior Court Velazquez v. State Oxendine v. State People v. Rideout
People v. Beardsley
F: Girl OD’d, guy with her charged with manslaughter.
H: No duty to help (generally).
Barber v. Superior Court
F: Doctors charged for murder after removing life support.
H: Physician has no duty to continue treatment once proven ineffective.
Velazquez v. State
F: Df prosecuted for veh. Homicide in connection with his drag racing with the victim on a public road.
H:No proximate cause: (1) foreseeability, (2) unjust to hold Df criminally responsible.
Oxendine v. State
F: Df beat kid after girlfriend had inflicted mortal blow, but did not cause death.
F: Contribution or aggravation of death without acceleration of death is insufficient to establish causation of death.
People v. Rideout
F: Df had car accident, other party was safe, but re-entered highway to turn on flashers and was hit.
H: Other party had reached safety, ending Dfs liability. (Proximate Cause).
Mens Rea
U.S. v. Cordoba-Hincapie Regina v. Cunningham People v. Conley State v. Nations (Willful Blindness) Flores-Figueroa v. U.S.
U.S. v. Cordoba-Hincapie
H: Competing definitions of Mens Rea, ‘guilty mind’ vs. specific intent.
H: Strict liability require no mens rea, and include minor violations and statutory rape.
Regina v. Cunningham
F: Df stole gas meter, chick got poisoned.
H: Malice requires (1) intent to do the harm that was done; or (2) recklessness as to whether the harm occurs.
People v. Conley
F: Df was convicted of aggravated battery for striking victim with a wine bottle, argued no intent to cause permanent disability.
H: Intent can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the crime.
State v. Nations
F: Df had underage stripper, didn’t ‘know’ she was underage, but was wilfully blind.
H: Statute required knowing and Df didn’t, so no crime. Exemplifies the wilful blindness doctrine.
Mens Rea (Strict Liability)
U.S. v. Cordoba-Hincapie
U.S. v. Staples
Garnett v. State
Staples v. U.S.
F: Df had AR he needed to register but didn’t know.
H: Courts must consider the severity of the penalty when determining whether Congress intended to eliminate a mens rea requirement.
Garnett v. State
F: Retard fucked 13 year old.
H: Statutory rape is S.L. to protect young persons.
Mens Rea (Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law)
People v. Navarro
People v. Marrero
Cheek v. U.S.
People v. Navarro (Mistake of Fact)
F: Df convicted of petty theft for taking lumber he believed was his.
H: If a person has a good faith belief that he has a right to certain property, he is not guilty, even if the belief is unreasonable.
People v. Marrero (Mistake of Law)
F: Df prison guard charged with possession of unlicensed gun.
H: Mistake of law is not a defense except to specific intent crimes.
Cheek v. U.S. (Mistake of Law)
F: Df failed to file tax returns, argued good faith belief that tax system was unconstitutional.
H: A good faith, although unresonable, mistake of law is a defense to criminal liability.
Homicide - Murder
State v. Guthrie
Midgett v. State
State v. Forrest
State v. Williams
State v. Guthrie
F: Df convicted of murder 1, argued heat of passion and no P/D.
H: There must be some period between formation of intent and killing to indicate premeditation.
Midgett v. State
F: Df beat his son to death, but didn’t meant to kill him.
H: P/D are required elements of murder 1.
State v. Forrest
F: Df shot ill father to end suffering.
H: Considerations for finding P/D: (1) lack of provocation by V; (2) conduct and statements of D before/after killing; (3) threats and declarations of D before/after killing; (4) ill-will between parties; (5) dealing lethal blows after V rendered harmless; (6) evidence of killing being done in a brutal manner.
Homicide _ Manslaughter (Heat of Passion)
Girouard v. State
People v. Casassa
Girouard v. State
F: Df killed wife after she repeatedly verbally abused him.
H: Words alone cannot constitute adequate provocation.
People v. Casassa
F: Df got murder 2 after killing woman he was obssessed with.
H: EMED requires Df act under influence of EMED and there was a reasonable excuse for the EMED.
