Gilbert Law Summary on Criminal Law
Authors:
Dix, George E. / Abramson, Leslie W.
Edition:
20th
Copyright Date:
2023
22 chapters
have results for criminal law
Chapter One. Introduction 19 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The English common law is a major source of modern criminal law. Definitions of the basic crimes and defenses developed through the English court and became part of the common law adopted in early America. Even where criminal law matters are now statutory, courts often refer to common law cases to clarify the meaning of statutory language.
- The ultimate issue in your Criminal Law examination question is whether the accused’s conduct creates criminal liability. Criminal liability is to be distinguished from other forms of liability: It is liability arising from the commission of a “crime.” Although at common law crimes were defined by case law, today criminal law is almost entirely a statutory matter. Your decision as to whether the accused’s conduct creates criminal liability necessarily involves consideration of the
- Statutes largely govern the current definitions and scope of substantive criminal law. Many jurisdictions use comprehensive criminal codes to define general principles of liability, specific crimes, and defenses. Even jurisdictions without comprehensive codes generally define criminal offenses by statute.
- The Model Penal Code is a proposed penal code developed and approved by the American Law Institute. Final approval to the Model Penal Code was given in 1962. The Code does not itself constitute “law,” because the Institute has no authority to promulgate law. However, the Code has served as the basis for almost all post1962 revision of state criminal statutory provisions.
- Sources of Criminal Law
- Open Chapter
Chapter Two. The Criminalization Decision 17 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Moreover, some feel so strongly that persons who violate criminal statutes should be punished that they will inflict punishment themselves if the law does not. Therefore, punishment pursuant to law is necessary to prevent others from committing additional criminal offenses by taking the law into their own hands.
- Some argue that social order requires a widespread consensus that criminal behavior is wrong and that subjecting offenders to punishment will maintain this consensus. Otherwise, the “social solidarity” encouraged by criminal punishment will dissolve and people will regard themselves as free to violate other criminal laws.
- Clearly, when specific conduct constitutes a crime, criminal punishment can be imposed upon those who engage in the proscribed behavior. But what are the justifications for punishing those who violate the criminal law?
- Punishing the offender may have a “general deterrent” effect, by indirectly warning others to anticipate similar punishment if they violate the criminal law.
- In addition, punishment may educate others that the violation of criminal statutes is morally wrong. Apart from the fear of punishment, such persons might abstain from criminal conduct because of their unwillingness to engage in morally reprehensible behavior.
- Open Chapter
Chapter Eight. Homicide Crimes 48 results (showing 5 best matches)
- At common law, homicides are classified as justifiable, excusable, or criminal. homicides are those commanded or authorized by law; they are not punishable. homicides are those in which the killer is to some extent at fault but where circumstances do not support infliction of full punishment for criminal homicide; the killing remains criminal but the penalty is reduced. Any killing that is not justifiable or excusable is criminal homicide and is known as either murder or manslaughter.
- The felony murder rule is a wellestablished part of American criminal law. Some courts have expressed dissatisfaction with the rule, however, reasoning that it imposes essentially strict liability for a serious crime in violation of basic principles of criminal liability. Nevertheless, some legislatures have expanded felony murder liability, sometimes in response to judicial limitations on it. By contrast, other states like California have repealed much of its felony-murder statutory framework.
- Modern statutes, or at least those that are part of a comprehensive revision of a state’s entire criminal code, tend to redefine the homicide offenses by grading them according to the different states of mind as defined by the Model Penal Code ( ). Note the absence of common law terms such as premeditation and deliberation.
- in a statute or case law
- Any of the homicide crimes may also raise issues regarding the definition of death, especially if a defendant argues that the victim’s death for legal purposes was actually caused by action taken by treating doctors. For example, suppose a physician removes a victim’s organs for purposes of an organ transplant before the victim’s legally defined death. If the physician is regarded as having legally caused the death, a defendant who had earlier shot the victim may be relieved of liability for criminal homicide and the physician may be guilty of a crime. It is, therefore, important to determine at what point life ends for purposes of homicide law.
- Open Chapter
Chapter Four. Elements of Crimes 116 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Modern criminal statutes, usually based on the Model Penal Code, define culpable mental states more carefully and comprehensively than traditional criminal law. Often, therefore, it is necessary to separate and distinguish traditional analysis from the analysis necessary under modern criminal statutes.
- For some crimes, liability can be based on a showing of criminal negligence, ., the defendant may be convicted for an act done without awareness of the facts but with a “gross” lack of care. The most frequent examples involve the crimes of common law involuntary manslaughter, battery, and criminal nuisance.
- If no act is required, punishment would be imposed on the basis of mere intent. However, thoughts are often not converted into action, and thus intent alone poses an insufficient danger to society to justify criminal liability. [ (“[t]he reach of the criminal law has long been limited by the principle that no one is punishable for his thoughts”)] Thus, no legitimate function is served by subjecting persons to criminal liability solely for having an evil intent. Moreover, the requirement of an act also serves a notice function by defining precisely what the law proscribes.
- Every criminal statute requires an act or omission to be a crime; a person is not guilty of an offense unless his conduct includes a voluntary act. Voluntary acts generally are required for a person to be guilty of a crime. Modern courts treat the voluntary act requirement as an important, though an implicit, element of criminal statutes, supported by common law origins. Broadly speaking, an “act” could include involuntary actions like bodily movements during sleep or unconsciousness. Narrowly, an “act” includes only voluntary bodily movement. When criminal liability is based upon the defendant’s affirmative act (as is the usual case), that
- To be convicted of a crime, the defendant must have committed a criminal act; the law does not punish mere criminal thoughts (
- Open Chapter
Chapter Six. Defenses 132 results (showing 5 best matches)
- No doctrine of criminal law permits a defendant to avoid criminal liability upon the basis of her cultural background and beliefs or attitudes attributable to that background. Criminal liability is not affected, for example, by evidence that in the defendant’s culture the conduct constituting the charged offense is accepted or even admired.
- Issues concerning the defendant’s ignorance or mistake of law arise in two entirely different contexts: (i) those in which, because of ignorance or mistake, the defendant required for a conviction; and (ii) those in which the defendant had the requisite mental state but claims he was mistaken about the applicable law and consequently by the criminal law. It is important to distinguish between the two situations, because only rarely is the latter recognized as a defense.
- It is a basic principle of the criminal law that the defendant cannot be convicted where it is shown that he did not have the necessary mental state. Hence, simple ignorance (
- Mistaken Belief That Criminal Law Does Not Prohibit Intended Conduct
- Criminal charges based on force used to resist an arrest present a special problem of selfdefense law.
- Open Chapter
Review Questions and Answers 43 results (showing 5 best matches)
- He still has not “acted” within the meaning of the criminal law. The fact that Dell and the woman were neighbors does not create a legal duty to act, and his bad or “criminal” intent alone cannot render him liable. [p. 34]
- BASIC LEGAL LIMITS UPON CRIMINAL LAW
- The modern trend is to expand on the common law legal duties. Thus, a court might find that the relationship between Dinah and Vinny obliged her to act to save Vinny’s life. If such a duty is found, Dinah’s omission will support a criminal homicide conviction. [p. 38]
- Although the statute may have imposed a duty to act, there is no “act” for criminal law purpose unless Dom was
- A belief that the criminal law is such that it does not cover one’s acts is generally not a defense. This situation does not come within any of the exceptions; none of the exceptions covers a belief based on advice of counsel. [p.
- Open Chapter
Capsule Summary 156 results (showing 5 best matches)
- At common law, a child presumed incapable of forming criminal intent and thus cannot be guilty of a crime. Between the presumed incapable of forming criminal intent. Children aged
- At common law, homicides are categorized as: (i) (those authorized by law), (ii)
- . Unlike other kinds of legal liability, criminal law considers (and even emphasizes) what the defendant was actually thinking when she committed the crime. Thus, criminal liability is generally subjective in nature. “Mens rea” is distinguishable from motive, which refers to the for criminal liability. Thus, proof of a good motive does not prevent a conviction.
- The definition of the basic crimes and defenses are from the English common law. Statutes now largely govern criminal matters, but the interpretation of statutes often refers to the common law cases.
- that the defendant was passively unaware her acts were prohibited by the criminal law or that she affirmatively but mistakenly believed the acts were not prohibited. However, in limited situations, the defendant may base a defense on an , after consideration of the matter, that the law did not make the conduct a crime.
- Open Chapter
Chapter Five. Scope of Criminal Liability 66 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Current law governing the criminal liability of organizations, such as corporations, reflects a major modification of traditional notions of criminal responsibility.
- At common law, an accessory after the fact is a party to the crime of the person assisted ( p. 75). Modern criminal codes, however, have significantly changed the potential liability of those who assist one who is known to have already committed an offense.
- At common law, corporations and associations could not be convicted of criminal offenses. This position was, in part, traceable to various conceptual problems in holding corporations liable. Basically, because a corporation is not a person, it cannot personally participate in a trial or be imprisoned if convicted. To some extent, however, it is likely that the common law rule was based on policy considerations militating against such liability.
- The law has been more reluctant to extend criminal liability to partnerships and other unincorporated associations. As a general rule, such associations are not subject to criminal conviction for the crimes of their individual partners or employees. Indeed, even if vicarious liability is imposed on several partners for the crime of one partner, the partnership
- It has also been stressed that vicarious liability is inconsistent with a basic principle of American criminal law that people should be held criminally liable only where they have demonstrated by their
- Open Chapter
Chapter Seven. Preliminary or Inchoate Crimes 74 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The law’s view on what objectives of agreements justify making those agreements criminal by means of conspiracy law has undergone considerable change from common law.
- Whether a defendant charged with conspiracy should have a defense of withdrawal or renunciation has given rise to some dispute in criminal law. In those jurisdictions which have added an overt act requirement by statute, the defendant is not punishable as a member of the conspiracy only if he withdraws before the overt act has been committed. As a practical matter, this is not significantly different from the common law rule.
- Sometimes a defendant sets out to do things (or to cause a particular result) that he believes would, if completed, constitute a crime but which were not in fact made criminal by the law. The person’s only
- Application of criminal conspiracy law has given rise to a number of problems. Many of them are a result of taking quite seriously the requirement of an “agreement.”
- D sets out on November 3 to shoot a deer that day and does kill one. D believes that killing a deer in November is a crime. In fact, it is a crime to hunt deer in December but not in November. D is obviously not guilty of killing a deer out of season. Nor is D guilty of an attempt to commit this crime. Under the law as D thought it to be, he was illegally killing a deer in November, but that is not a crime. D believes this would be a crime, but this mistake
- Open Chapter
Exam Strategies 6 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The ultimate issue in a Criminal Law examination question is whether the defendant’s conduct creates criminal liability. This involves consideration of three main issues: (i) whether the conduct, on its face, to conviction and punishment. Sometimes a statute defining the crime will be presented in the question, and often there will be statutes relating to possible defenses. However, these statutes may explicitly or implicitly incorporate common law rules and therefore even these questions require you to have a thorough understanding of the common law crimes and defenses.
- With this in mind, approach Criminal Law questions using the following basic analytical framework. And don’t forget to review the more detailed approaches to specific topics in the Key Exam Issues sections at the beginning of each chapter and the Exam Tips found throughout the Summary.
- did it satisfy the specific requirements of the statute creating or defining the crime? (Keep in mind that the criminal “act” may consist of a failure to act when under a legal duty to do so.
- Under the law of complicity, did the defendant render the sort of assistance or encouragement that would make him, in common law terms, a
- that must have existed at the time of the defendant’s act, can they be shown? (For example, if the defendant is charged with common law rape, it must be established that the victim was not his wife.)
- Open Chapter
Chapter Three. Basic Legal Limits upon Criminal Law 30 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The following examples illustrate the impact of the right of privacy on substantive criminal law:
- The Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, binding on the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, imposes a number of different limits upon criminal law. Some of these limits are discussed below,
- Generally, a defendant can challenge only whether a criminal statute is vague This means the defendant must show that the statute failed to give him notice that the conduct for which he is being prosecuted was prohibited. Such a defendant cannot argue that the statute would deny notice to some other hypothetical defendant. However, if a criminal statute covers a considerable amount of constitutionally protected conduct (such as speech), the courts will evaluate its vagueness “ ” rather than as applied to the defendant’s situation. Furthermore, when a criminal statute infringes on constitutionally protected rights and its tendency to encourage arbitrary application by police “permeates [its] text,” a defendant can attack it on its face. [
- , and most bar any form of criminal conviction or punishment. Sometimes, however, only particular penalties are prohibited. The last doctrine discussed in chapter considers a bar to conviction (or perhaps only punishment) for multiple offenses that may be based on statutes or case law.
- , remaining in any one place with no apparent purpose—in a public place; (iii) the officer had reason to believe at least one of the persons was a criminal street gang member; and (iv) the officer ordered all of the persons to disperse and leave the area. The definition of loitering is so imprecise that it gives police officers absolute discretion to determine what activities constitute loitering and thus can serve as the basis for an order and prosecution. Consequently, the ordinance fails to provide constitutionally required minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement and is constitutionally vague. [
- Open Chapter
Chapter Twelve. Offenses Against Government 6 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Treason and related offenses are of limited applicability on criminal law exams, but where they may apply, watch especially for two considerations:
- It is also a violation of federal criminal law to knowingly or willfully advocate the overthrow or destruction of the government of the United States or any state. [
- crime, and its definition is fixed both by the United States Constitution and state criminal codes.
- of the known treason of another. It is punishable under federal law and the law of some states. [
- Under ancient English law, it was “high treason” to kill the king, promote revolt in the kingdom or armed forces, or counterfeit the great seal. “Petit treason” consisted of a killing of a husband by his wife, a master or mistress by a servant, or a prelate by a clergyman. Treason was neither a felony nor a misdemeanor but a crime in a separate class by itself.
- Open Chapter
Title Page 3 results
Criminal Law 1 result
Chapter Nine. Other Crimes Against the Person 41 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Common law criminal assault was apparently limited to attempts to commit a battery. Virtually all jurisdictions now recognize this form of assault.
- Traditionally, battery requires only that the defendant act with criminal negligence, as where he that his conduct would cause the application of force to the person of another. These cases use a fiction, saying that intent is necessary but that criminal negligence supplies the intent. [ (if one recklessly injures another, it is a battery, for the law “holds him to have intended” the injury and “treats him as if he had done an intended wrong”)]
- or criminal sexual conduct, that is designed to be sexually neutral. The Michigan statute is a widely followed model. [
- Two different kinds of activity may constitute a criminal assault: (i) an
- to do so. This is not criminal assault, although it could be if D also raises her fist if to act on her threats. [
- Open Chapter
Chapter Eleven. Crimes Against Property—Acquisition Offenses 38 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This position has been defended on the ground that it is not the purpose of the criminal law to provide redress for every victim of a bad bargain. Civil remedies suffice for such situations. [
- As indicated, modern criminal codes often consolidate some or nearly all of the property acquisition offenses into a single offense called “theft.” This crime, purely a creature of modern statutes and unknown to the common law, requires proof that the defendant:
- At early common law, one who simply received stolen property incurred no criminal liability, not even as an accessory after the fact, because he did not harbor the thief himself. While later English statutes provided for accomplice liability in such situations (even if the thief himself had not been convicted), it was not until 1827 that a separate statutory crime of receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen was promulgated.
- Some statutes are silent as to the requirement of a “bad” intent, and the case law under some of them contains no suggestion that such an intent is essential. [ (receiving stolen property requires only “general criminal intent” to aid thief, render recovery of property by owner more difficult, or to deprive owner of property)]
- D, a lawyer, represented W in a divorce proceeding. D obtained photographs of her spouse, H, in a criminal sexual act. D showed the photos to H and told him that, unless he agreed to a property settlement in the divorce proceedings, D would use the photos in court and thus reveal H’s commission of the criminal sexual act. D was guilty of extortion under a statute defining the offense as maliciously threatening to accuse another of an offense with intent to extort money. [
- Open Chapter
Index 43 results (showing 5 best matches)
SummaryofContents 7 results (showing 5 best matches)
Chapter Ten. Crimes Against the Habitation 24 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A “constructive” entry occurs (and is sufficient for burglary) where the defendant causes a person incapable of committing a criminal offense (
- The common law crime of burglary has very technical requirements, many of which have been changed by statute. If a question calls for analysis of
- Like burglary, common law arson has some technical requirements. Most notable is the burning requirement. For you to find that there has been a “burning,” you must see facts that show: (i) a of the above, there has been no arson. (As with burglary, if the question doesn’t specify whether the common law or a statute applies, discuss the common law elements and then mention the major statutory departures therefrom.)
- Modern statutes based on the Model Penal Code require no impact on the structure and thus do not require a “burning” in the technical sense of common law arson. Even modern statutes requiring damage to a structure do not require that this damage meet the common law definition of a burning.
- ] Some courts, however, reason that one who enters such premises concealing his criminal purpose engages in deception that nullifies the consent. Thus, entry of a store open to the public can constitute burglary. [
- Open Chapter
Exam Questions and Answers 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Discuss the possible criminal liability of Mechanic and Parks.
- What is Dant’s possible criminal liability? Discuss.
- Peter Linin has been charged with a violation of the following criminal statute:
- § 567.89. Criminal Nonsupport.
- Among the criminal statutes in the jurisdiction are the following:
- Open Chapter
Chapter Thirteen. Offenses Against the Administration of Justice 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Perjury is still a crime under modern law. However, modern statutes have sometimes modified the common law definition:
- If the terminology of “accessory after the fact” is retained in modern criminal statutes, it is used to identify a
- Under common law “party” rules, one who assists a known felon in escaping arrest, prosecution, or conviction can incur liability for the felony committed as an accessory after the fact (
- Common Law
- At common law, one who
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: January 26th, 2023
- ISBN: 9781685613662
- Subject: Criminal Law
- Series: Gilbert Law Summaries
- Type: Outlines
- Description: The topics discussed in this criminal law outline are elements of crimes (including actus reus, mens rea, and causation), vicarious liability, complicity in crime, criminal liability of corporations, and defenses (including insanity, diminished capacity, intoxication, ignorance, and self-defense). Also included are inchoate crimes, homicide, other crimes against the person, crimes against habitation (including burglary and arson), crimes against property, offenses against the government, and offenses against the administration of justice.
