Criminal Law Rules and Cases Flashcards
What are the 4 rationales of punishment?
Deterrence (specific and general)
Incapacitation
Rehabilitation
Retribution
Regina v. Dudley and Stephens
Private necessity cannot be used to justify killing another (men stuck at sea without food decide to kill one of the men to eat)
People v. Suitte
Example of harsh punishments that don’t take into account whether or not it was a first offense are meant to discourage people from committing that crime (man who registered a gun in NC, but didn’t register it in NY and got caught with the gun in his car in NY)
Curley v. United States
If evidence reasonably permits a verdict of acquittal or a verdict of guilty, it cannot be solved by directed verdict, it should go to a jury to make the decision (man claimed he had nothing to do with fraudulent housing projects and contracts despite being the president of the company)
People v. Williams
A juror who is unable or unwilling to determine the facts of a criminal case and render a verdict in accordance with the court’s instructions may be discharged from jury service (juror refused to rule according to the law because the defendant had a statutory rape enhancement because his girlfriend was 16 when he was 18)
United States v. Dauray
In a criminal prosecution, ambiguities in a statute should be resolved in the defendant’s favor according to the rule of lenity (man had 13 unbound pictures of child sexual abuse in his car, but the statute didn’t target pictures but pictures would fall under “other matter” which didn’t really make sense)
Papachristou v. Citizen of Jacksonville
Under the Constitution, a law must (1) give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that the person’s conduct is forbidden by the law and (2) must not encourage arbitrary and erratic enforcement (bunch of people got charged for breaking vague vagrancy laws)
Kolender v. Lawson
Another example of the void for vagueness doctrine (man was arrested for a specific statute that required showing “credible and reliable identification” to officers who asked and the statute was deemed too vague)
City of Seattle v. Webster
The inclusion of specific intent to commit an act can prevent an ordinance from being unconstitutionally overbroad. To be void based on unreasonableness, the ordinance must be “clearly and plainly” unreasonable. (WA statute made it unlawful to intentionally obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic and “aggressive begging”)
City of Seattle v. Eze
Vagueness doctrine is limited in 2 ways: (1) a statute is presumed to be constitutional unless its unconstitutionality appears beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) impossible standards of specificity are not required (man who was being loud and unreasonable on a bus was charged for breaking the statute that you cannot be loud and unreasonable on a bus)
Kennedy v. Louisiana
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in a criminal case that doesn’t result in the death of a victim (man charged with rape of a child was sentenced to death)
Graham v. Florida
The Eighth Amendment prohibits imposing a life sentence without parole upon a juvenile who did not commit a homicide (17 year old commits multiple armed robberies and sentenced to life in prison)
State of Washington v. Moretti
Third strike laws where the first strike is when the person is a young adult and the third strike is when the person is in their 30s and 40s is constitutional (men who committed their first crime in their 20s and a later ones in their 30s still get all crimes counted under three strike laws)
McClesky v. Kemp
A criminal defendant alleging an equal protection violation must prove the existence of a discriminatory purpose and a rationally disproportionate and discriminatory effect (Black man tried to use a statistical study from Georgia to show that racism may have been why he got the death penalty and the court said no to looking at that evidence)
Why do juries have the power of nullification?
1) They’re not told how to apply specific laws to specific acts
2) The Constitutional double jeopardy bar prevents an appellate court from disregarding the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendant and ordering a new trial on the same charge
