Criminal Law Midterm: Gale GWU

Marbury v. Madison - correct answer laid the foundation of judicial review FACTS: William Marbury did not receive his commission from being appointed as Justice of the Peace. QUESTION: Can he receive his commissions? Can he sue? Can SCOTUS order the delivery of commissions? DECISION: Congress cannot alter the Constitution, Judicial Review was created. Cohen v. California - correct answer FACTS: Cohen was charged with disturbing the peace for wearing a "**** the Draft" jean jacket; defendant claimed he was informing the public of his feelings against Vietnam war/draft. QUESTION: is the California statute a violation of freedom of expression? DECISION: YES. violated 1st and 14th Amendment rights. Court held that the words on the jacket did not pose any harm to the public and could not be considered fighting words. No one would likely be provoked by the words displayed. Court held that the government cannot censor one person in order to protect others from his/her opinion. Papachristou v. Jacksonville - correct answer FACTS: eight defendants in Florida were convicted of vagrancy (common night walkers, drunkards, theives, gamblers, etc....) Based on a Florida statute derived from early English law QUESTION: Is the Florida law void and unconstitutional for vagueness? DECISION: YES. Did not give fair notice for what was forbidden. Normal activities were criminalized under this law. Lawrence v. Texas - correct answer *overturned a precedent (Bowers v. Hardwick which claimed homosexuality was immoral) *does not apply only to homosexuality: right of individual to sexual activity desired *does NOT protect minor sex or prostitution FACTS: police entered an apartment and found two males participating in sexual activity and were arrested. QUESTION: Is a TX statute criminalizing same-sex relationships valid? REASONING: the two petitioners were adults. the sex was consensual. violates the Due Process clause - petitioners have a right to liberty as much as anyone else to engage in sexual activity within the privacy of their own home. People of California v. Medina - correct answer FACTS: 4 friends, 3 of whom were a part of the Lil Watts gang, got into an argument with a rival gang member at a house party. After being told to take the fight outside, the rival member got into his car and began to drive away. Someone claimed "grab the heat" in which Medina proceeded to shoot the car and kill the rival member. QUESTION: What is the criminal liability of the participants who did not actually shoot the victim? DECISION: two participants were found guilty as aiders and abettors to the principal gunman (murder and attempted murder) because the shooting was reasonably foreseeable and a probable consequence of the fight that ensued outside. People of California v. Knoller - correct answer FACTS: 2 dogs owned by the defendants attacked and killed a woman in the hallway of her apartment. The dog breed is known to be violent and defendants possessed documents warning them of the dogs' nature. 30 incidents existed of the dogs being out of control. Dogs were also left unattended all the time. QUESTION: Should the charge be murder II or involuntary manslaughter? Was there malice? DECISION: defendants convicted of second-degree murder on the basis of IMPLIED malice. Due to the facts presented, it is likely that the defendants knew of the potential harm their dogs could cause for others. Manuel v. State - correct answer FACTS: Two boys were playing quietly in an open field near a woman's home. In that home, the woman and another woman got into an argument. Louise Manuel's husband heard she had gotten into a tiff and went to the home of Ms. Hayes to find out what happened. After firing a shot into the ground, one of the young boys called out for his friend and received no answer. Manuel then moved closer to a broken light post and shot a second shot towards a few trash cans. Manuel had no idea that there were young boys in the area. Manuel did not intend to hit the boy. QUESTION: Should the conviction be murder II or involuntary manslaughter? DECISION: Lessened sentence to involuntary manslaughter because Manuel did not think a person would be near or at the group of trash cans. The facts cannot show that there was malice or a depraved mind, which is necessary for a murder II charge. He acted more out of negligence. People v. Stamp - correct answer FACTS: defendants were armed and entered an office building and ordered all employees to lie on the ground until they took the money and left. One man, Honeyman, was the owner and manager and suffered a fatal disease. Upon getting up from the floor, Honeyman was short of breath, suffered a heart attack, and died by the time he reached the hospital. Doctors concluded that the heart attack was due to the fright ensued from the robbery. QUESTION: if a robbery victim dies of a heart attack, is a felony murder charge legitimate? DECISION: YES, felony murder conviction is legitimate because an armed robbery presumes malice and a death resulting from this crime can be considered felony murder even though defendants did not intend to kill Honeyman. US v. Contento-Pachon - correct answer FACTS: Panchon wad a taxi driver and a passenger offered him a driving job. When Panchon approached him regarding the job, the man actually wanted him to swallow cocaine-filled balloons and smuggle them into the U.S. Panchon did not notify Columbian authorities at any time because he thought they were corrupt. The man told Panchon he would kill his wife and kid if he did not transport the cocaine. Panchon agreed to smuggle the drugs in fear for his family's safety. LA TSA saw the cocaine during x-ray screening. QUESTION: Can Panchon be excused with duress and necessity defenses? DECISION: Court ruled that Panchon has sufficient evidence showing duress. Fear of losing his family was imminent . Necessity defense not used because Panchon was not physically forced to smuggle drugs. State of North Carolina v. Norman - correct answer QUESTION: Whether the imminent threat element of self defense was met in the case involving a battered woman which would excuse her of 6 years imprisonment following her conviction of involuntary manslaughter DECISION: NO, imminent threat was not met. The victim could not prove she reasonably believed she was facing death or bodily harm when she shot her sleeping husband. He did not pose an imminent threat at the time she killed him U.S. v. Freeman - correct answer FACTS: Freeman robbed a bank and claimed it was in order to obtain money for a "save the children" fund in Ethiopia. He is claiming he was not sane at the time of the robbery and was obsessed with raising money. Doctor documents confirm he was possibly schizophrenic and experienced severe depression. QUESTION: Was Freeman sane at the time of the robbery? DECISION: Yes. Freeman knew his conduct was wrong. He changed clothes to avoid being identified, obtained a handgun to execute to robbery and threatened to kill everyone if they called the police. His demeanor was seen as appropriate at the time of arrest. State of Minnesota v. Moser - correct answer FACTS: Moser solicited a child for sex over the internet. The child told him she was 16 when she was actually 14. He repeatedly asked her for pictures of herself. Moser was charged with solicitation of a minor but claimed that if the only contact was over the internet, he could use a mistake-of-age defense. QUESTION: Should strict liability be applied? ANSWER: The child-solicitation state makes it a felony for someone over 18 to solicit a minor (under 15), over the internet or not. A mistake of age is an irrelevant defense here. This statute imposes strict liability. Historically, however, criminal liability REQUIRES mens rea. COURT DECIDED that this statute violates substantive due process as applied to this case. REVERSED THE CHARGE. Significance of Judicial Review - correct answer Marbury v. Madison established that the courts have the ultimate authority to interpret and apply the Constitution and federal laws. Includes the power to determine if the other two branches (Executive and Legislative) violate the Constitution. Ensures balance of power beyond a reasonable doubt - correct answer highest standard of proof; burden lies on the prosecution to prove defendant guilty in criminal cases, burden does not shift to defense torts - correct answer injuries inflicted intentionally or through negligence. remediable through civil suits seeking monetary damages or court ordered actions preponderance of the evidence - correct answer in a civil case: (burden of proof) one party's evidence must be greater/more credible than the other to win a civil suit civil law parties - correct answer plaintiff and defendant criminal law parties - correct answer prosecutor and defendant civil suit outcome - correct answer if plaintiff wins, defendant must pay money or abide by court order criminal suit outcome - correct answer found guilty and charged OR acquitted stare decisis - correct answer Let the decision stand; decisions are based on precedents from previous cases ex post facto laws - correct answer meaning "after the fact" prohibited by the constitution; punishing someone for something that was legal at the time that they did it (making that action illegal) dual soverignty - correct answer a person can be tried by separate federal and state courts on separate charges based on the same incident. does not count as double jeapordy state power to enact laws - correct answer can exercise "police power" aka the power to pass any legislation as long as it does not infringe on personal rights (14th amendment rights) federal gov power to enact laws - correct answer no police power - cannot enact a law unless there is Constitutional authority for the law 14th Amendment - correct answer Declares that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens and are guaranteed equal protection of the laws - power extended to states (they cant deprive due process) 1st Amendment - correct answer Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition fighting words - correct answer (THREAT*) speech likely to provoke violence, "personally abusive epithets" - don't usually apply to political speech (i.e. "**** the Draft" obscenity - correct answer depicting sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and that lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. - courts generally hesitant to criminalize unless its harmful to a child freedom of assembly - correct answer regulating assembly can be legitimate if time, place and manner restrictions are reasonable, "content neutral" and restrictions are narrow/reasonable 2nd Amedment - correct answer Right to bear arms - subject to reasonable government regulation (D.C. v Heller) due process - correct answer fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement. right to privacy - correct answer established as an individual right in Eisenstadt v. Baird - Roe v. Wade extended this as the right for a woman to choose 4th Amendment - correct answer