DOCSLIB.ORG

Brief Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brief Contents BRIEF CONTENTS Preface xi 1. The Nature, Purpose, and Function of Criminal Law 1 Appendix: Reading and Briefing Cases 15 2. Constitutional Limitations 21 3. Punishment and Sentencing 51 4. Actus Reus 87 5. /Wens Rea, Concurrence, Causation 115 6. Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability 147 7. Attempt, Conspiracy, and Solicitation 175 8. Justifications 211 9. Excuses 261 10. Homicide 309 11. Criminal Sexual Conduct, Assault and Battery, Kidnapping, and False Imprisonment 361 12. Burglary, Trespass, Arson, and IViischief 403 13. Crimes Against Property 425 14. White-Collar Crime 467 15. Crimes Against Public Order and Morality 491 16. Crimes Against the State 529 Notes N-l Glossary G-l Case Index Cl-l Subject Index Sl-l About the Author A-l DETAILED CONTENTS Preface xi Locating Cases 19 The Case Method xi Legal Terminology 20 Chapter Organization xii 2. Constitutional Limitations 21 Organization of the Text xii Third Edition xiii Introduction 21 Acknowledgments xiv The Rule of Legality 22 Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws 22 1. The Nature, Purpose, Bills of Attainder 22 and Function of Criminal Law 1 Ex Post Facto Laws 23 The Supreme Court and Ex Post Facto Laws 23 Introduction 1 Statutory Clarity 24 The Nature of Criminal Law 2 Clarity 24 Criminal and Civil Law 2 Definite Standards for Law Enforcement 24 The Purpose of Criminal Law 3 Void for Vagueness 25 The Principles of Criminal Law 3 State v. Stanko 26 Categories of Crime 4 Equal Protection 29 Felonies and Misdemeanors 4 Three Levels of Scrutiny 29 Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita 4 Wright v. South Carolina 30 Subject Matter 5 Freedom of Speech 33 Sources of Criminal Law 5 Overbreadth 35 The Common Law 6 Hate Speech 36 State Criminal Codes 6 George T. v. California 37 State Police Power 7 Privacy 44 The Model Penal Code 7 The Constitutional Right to Privacy 44 Federal Statutes 8 The Constitutional Right to Privacy and Constitutional Limitations 9 Same-Sex Relations Between Consenting Chapter Summary 12 Adults in the Home 46 Chapter Review Questions 13 The Right to Bear Arms 47 Legal Terminology 13 Chapter Summary 48 Criminal Law on the Web 14 Chapter Review Questions 49 Bibliography 14 Legal Terminology 49 Criminal Law on the Web 50 Appendix: Reading and Briefing Cases 15 Bibliography 50 Introduction 15 The Structure of Cases 16 3. Punishment and Sentencing 51 Introduction 16 Introduction 51 Title 16 Punishment 53 Citation 16 Purposes of Punishment 54 Judge 16 Retribution 54 Outline 16 Deterrence 54 Judicial Opinion 16 Rehabilitation 54 Briefing a Case 17 Incapacitation 54 Approaching the Case 18 Restoration 55 Sentencing 55 Hranicky v. State 124 Evaluating Sentencing Schemes 56 Negligently 127 Approaches to Sentencing 56 People v. Baker 128 Sentencing Guidelines 57 Strict Liability 130 Truth in Sentencing 59 State v. Walker 131 Victims' Rights 59 Concurrence 134 Cruel and Unusual Punishment 60 State v.Rose 135 Methods of Punishment 60 Causation 136 The Amount of Punishment: Capital Cause in Fact 137 Punishment 61 Legal or Proximate Cause 137 The Juvenile Death Penalty 63 Intervening Cause 137 Roper v. Simmons 63 Coincidental Intervening Acts 138 The Amount of Punishment: Responsive Intervening Acts 138 Sentences for a Term of Years 71 The Model Penal Code 139 Humphrey v. Wilson 72 People v. Cervantes 140 The Amount of Punishment: Drug Offenses 77 Chapter Summary 144 Criminal Punishment and Status Offenses 78 Chapter Review Questions 145 Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Legal Terminology 146 A Summary 79 Criminal Law on the Web 146 Equal Protection 79 Bibliography 146 Chapter Summary 83 Chapter Review Questions 84 6. Parties to Crime and Vicarious Liability 147 Legal Terminology 84 Introduction 147 Criminal Law on the Web 85 Parties to a Crime 148 Bibliography 85 Actus Reus of Accomplice Liability 149 State v. Ulvinen 150 4. ActusReus 87 Mens Rea of Accomplice Liability 153 Introduction 87 United States v. Fountain 155 Criminal Acts 88 Natural and Probable Consequences A Voluntary Criminal Act 88 Doctrine 157 State v. Fields 89 State v. Robinson 157 Status Offenses 92 Accessory After the Fact 160 People v. Kellogg 93 The Common Law 160 Omissions 97 The Elements of Accessory After the Fact 161 The American and State v.Chism 162 European Bystander Rules 97 Vicarious Liability 166 The Duty to Intervene 98 Corporate Liability 166 Jones v. United States 101 Public Policy 167 Possession 105 Commonwealth v. Koczwara 168 State v. Toups 107 Automobiles, Parents, and Vicarious Liability 171 Chapter Summary 112 Traffic Tickets 171 Chapter Review Questions 112 Parents 171 Legal Terminology 112 Chapter Summary 173 Criminal Law on the Web 113 Chapter Review Questions 173 Bibliography 113 Legal Terminology 174 Criminal Law on the Web 174 5. Metis Rea, Concurrence, Causation 115 Bibliography 174 Introduction 115 MensRea 115 7. Attempt, Conspiracy, and Solicitation 175 The Evidentiary Burden 116 Introduction 175 The Model Penal Code Standard 117 Attempt 176 Purposely 118 History of Attempt 176 Commonwealth v. Ferino 119 Public Policy and Attempt 177 Knowingly 121 The Elements of Criminal Attempt 177 State v. Nations 122 Mens Rea of Attempt 178 Recklessly 124 Smallwood v. State 178 Actus Reus of Attempt 180 Legal Terminology 259 Three Legal Tests 181 Criminal Law on the Web 259 The Physical Proximity and Bibliography 260 Substantial Step Tests 182 Bolton v. State 183 9. Excuses 261 Impossibility 185 State v. Glass 186 Introduction 261 Abandonment 189 The Insanity Defense 261 Ross v. State 190 The Right- Wrong Test 263 Conspiracy 192 The Irresistible Impulse Test 264 Actus Reus 192 The Durham Product Test 266 Overt Act 193 The Substantial Capacity Test 266 Mens Rea 193 Burden of Proof 267 Parties 194 The Future of The Structure of Conspiracies 194 the Insanity Defense 267 Criminal Objectives 195 Galloway v. State 269 Conspiracy Prosecutions 196 Diminished Capacity 275 United States v. Garcia 198 Intoxication 276 Solicitation 203 Voluntary Intoxication 277 Public Policy 203 Involuntary Intoxication 277 The Crime of Solicitation 204 Brancaccio v. State 278 State v. Cotton 205 Age 280 Chapter Summary 207 Brazill v. State 281 Chapter Review Questions 209 State v. Ramer 284 Legal Terminology 209 Duress 287 Criminal Law on the Web 210 The Elements of Duress 287 Bibliography 210 Duress and Correctional Institutions 288 The Duress Defense 289 8. Justifications 211 United States v. Moreno 290 Mistake of Law and Mistake of Fact 293 Introduction 211 Mistake of Law 293 The Prosecutor's Burden 211 Mistake of Fact 294 Affirmative Defenses 212 Entrapment 295 Mitigating Circumstances 213 The Law of Entrapment 296 Self-Defense 214 The Subjective Test 296 The Central Components The Objective Test 297 of Self-Defense 214 Due Process 298 State v. Marshall 215 The Entrapment Defense 298 Reasonable Belief 217 Miller v. State 299 People v. Goetz 217 New Defenses 301 Imminence 222 State v. Norman 223 Some New Defenses 302 Excessive Force 226 The Cultural Defense 303 Retreat 227 State v. Kargar 304 Chapter Summary 307 United States v. Peterson 227 Chapter Review Questions 307 Defense of Others 232 Legal Terminology 308 Defense of the Home 233 Criminal Law on the Web 308 People v. Ceballos 234 Bibliography 308 Execution of Public Duties 236 The Modem Legal Standard 237 Tennessee v. Garner 239 10. Homicide 309 Resisting Unlawful Arrests 244 Introduction 309 Necessity 246 Types of Criminal Homicide 310 Commonwealth v. Kendall 249 Actus Reus and Criminal Homicide 312 Consent 253 The Beginning of Human Life 312 State v. Dejarlais 255 People v. Davis 313 Chapter Summary 258 The End of Human Life 318 Chapter Review Questions 259 Mens Rea and Criminal Homicide 318 Murder 319 Kidnapping 393 First-Degree Murder 319 Criminal Intent 394 State v. Forrest 320 Criminal Act 394 Capital and Aggravated People v. Aguilar 396 First-Degree Murder 322 False Imprisonment 398 Owen v. State 323 Chapter Summary 400 Second-Degree Murder 327 Chapter Review Questions 401 Midgett v. State 328 Legal Terminology 401 Depraved Heart Murder 331 Criminal Law on the Web 402 State v. Davidson 332 Bibliography 402 Felony Murder 335 People v. Lowery 337 12. Burglary, Trespass, Arson, and Mischief 403 Corporate Murder 341 State v. Richard Knutson, Inc. 342 Introduction 403 Manslaughter 345 Burglary 403 Voluntary Manslaughter 345 Breaking 404 Voluntary Manslaughter Reconsidered 347 Entry 404 Girouard v. State 348 Dwelling House 405 Involuntary Manslaughter 352 Dwelling of Another 405 Negligent Manslaughter 352 Nighttime 405 State v. Jones 353 Intent 406 Misdemeanor Manslaughter 356 Aggravated Burglary 406 Chapter Summary 357 Do We Need the Crime of Burglary? 406 Chapter Review Questions 358 Bruce v. Commonwealth 408 Legal Terminology 358 Hitt v. Commonwealth 409 Criminal Law on the Web 359 Trespass 412 Bibliography 359 Arson 415 Burning 415 Dwelling 415 11. Criminal Sexual Conduct, Assault and Battery, Dwelling of Another 416 Kidnapping, and False Imprisonment 361 Willful and Malicious 416 Introduction 361 Grading 416 The Common Law of Rape 362 InreJessseL. 418 The Elements of the Criminal Mischief 420 Common Law of Rape 363 Actus Reus 420 Rape Reform 364 Mens Rea 421 The Impact of Rape Reform 365 People v. Nicholas Y. 421 Punishment and Sexual Assault 365 Chapter Summary 423 The Actus Reus of Modern Rape 365 Chapter Review Questions 424 Commonwealth v. Berkowitz 366 Legal Terminology 424 In the Interest of M.T.S. 369 Criminal Law on the Web 424 Other Approaches to the Actus Reus of Modern Bibliography 424 Rape 373 Mens Rea 373 13. Crimes Against Property 425 Statutory Rape 374 Introduction 425 Garnett v. State 375 Larceny 426 Withdrawal of Consent 378 Actus Reus: Trespassory Taking 426 People v. John Z. 378 Asportation 427 Rape Shield Laws 380 Property of Another 428 Assault and Battery 382 Mens Rea 428 The Elements of Battery 383 Grades of Larceny 429 Simple and Aggravated Battery 383 People v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States District Court District of Connecticut
    Case 3:16-cr-00238-SRU Document 305 Filed 06/28/19 Page 1 of 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES No. 3:16-cr-238 (SRU) v. FRANCISCO BETANCOURT, CARLOS ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, and LUCILO CABRERA RULING ON MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND/OR FOR A NEW TRIAL (Doc. Nos. 234, 235, 242, 257) Francisco Betancourt, Carlos Hernandez, and Lucilo Cabrera were charged via a third superseding indictment with kidnapping, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, extortion, and conspiracy to commit extortion.1 See Third Super. Indict., Doc. No. 115. After a nine-day trial, the jury returned its verdict on March 9, 2018. See Verdict, Doc. No. 225. Betancourt, Hernandez, and Cabrera were each found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit kidnapping (Count One) and one count of conspiracy to commit extortion (Count Two). Id. In addition, Betancourt was convicted of three counts of kidnapping (Counts Three, Four, and Five), and three counts of extortion (Counts Six, Nine, and Eleven).2 Id. Hernandez was convicted of three counts of kidnapping (Counts Three, Four, and Five), and two counts of extortion (Counts Six and Nine).3 Cabrera was convicted of two counts of kidnapping (Counts 1 Co-defendant Pascual Rodriguez was also charged in the third superseding indictment. See Third Super. Indict., Doc. No. 115. Rodriguez filed a Motion to Sever before trial, which I granted. See Order, Doc. No. 181. Accordingly, he was not tried alongside Betancourt, Hernandez, and Cabrera and later entered a guilty plea on October 12, 2018. See Findings and Recommendations, Doc.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Against Property
    9 CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Is Alvarez guilty of false pretenses as a Learning Objectives result of his false claim of having received the Congressional Medal of 1. Know the elements of larceny. Honor? 2. Understand embezzlement and the difference between larceny and embezzlement. Xavier Alvarez won a seat on the Three Valley Water Dis- trict Board of Directors in 2007. On July 23, 2007, at 3. State the elements of false pretenses and the a joint meeting with a neighboring water district board, distinction between false pretenses and lar- newly seated Director Alvarez arose and introduced him- ceny by trick. self, stating “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired 4. Explain the purpose of theft statutes. in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Con- gressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by 5. List the elements of receiving stolen property the same guy. I’m still around.” Alvarez has never been and the purpose of making it a crime to receive awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, nor has he stolen property. spent a single day as a marine or in the service of any 6. Define forgery and uttering. other branch of the United States armed forces. The summer before his election to the water district board, 7. Know the elements of robbery and the differ- a woman informed the FBI about Alvarez’s propensity for ence between robbery and larceny. making false claims about his military past. Alvarez told her that he won the Medal of Honor for rescuing the Amer- 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Dressler Criminal Law Outline
    DRESSLER CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE I. INTRODUCTORY POINTS A. Sources of Criminal Law. 1. Common Law. 2. Statutes Derived from Common Law. 3. Model Penal Code. 4. (Bill of Rights) B. Criminal Law v. Civil Law 1. Criminal a. Defendant is punished (incarcerated) b. The criminal conviction itself says defendant is a moral wrongdoer. It is a condemnation by the community/ “a morality play.” → (Moral blameworthiness) • Usually about things you are not supposed to do as opposed to things you must do • 2. Civil a. Defendant pays victim. (compensation) b. Defendant is not morally stigmatized. (tort claims) C. Theories of Punishment. 1. Retributivism “Is it more about desert” a. People should get what they deserve. b. Humans have free will. If they choose to do wrong, it is appropriate to punish them. c. Looks backwards. Only punishes to the extent of the wrongdoing. d. Justice for the victim • The moral desert of an offender is a sufficient reason to punish him or her which is a necessary condition of punishment • Wouldn’t want to punish someone mentally ill bc they are not morally culpable • Rests on moral culpability 2. Utilitarianism – “What good does it do” • Focuses on what punishing that particular person accomplishes a. All forms of pain are bad. Punishment is not good, but neither is crime. Punishment is proper if imposition of pain will reduce the likelihood of future crimes. b. Punishment is justified in so far as it produces some net social benefit. Forward Looking c. Forms of utilitarianism. i. General deterrence: ● convince the general community to avoid criminal conduct in the future ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Law Review See Also
    Texas Law Review See Also Response Taking It to the Streets Stuart P. Green* For more than fifty years, some of the best minds in criminal law theory have applied some of the most sophisticated tools of analysis in an effort to solve the seemingly insolvable blackmail paradox.1 Whether any of these theorists has been successful is debatable. In Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory, Paul Robinson, Michael Cahill, and Daniel Bartels advance the novel—dare I say, paradoxical—notion that one way to solve the problem is to ask a collection of laypersons, untutored in law or philosophy, what they think should count as blackmail.2 There is much about the article that is admirable: The way the authors derive concrete scenarios from abstract theories is ingenious; their summary of the various blackmail theories is a model of conciseness; the methodological techniques they use are exemplary. As is the norm for brief responses of this sort, however, I shall focus on what I perceive as the article’s shortcomings rather than its strengths. In so doing, I do not mean to minimize the authors’ achievement. * Professor of Law and Justice Nathan L. Jacobs Scholar, Rutgers School of Law–Newark. 1. The seminal piece is Glanville Williams, Blackmail, CRIM. L. REV. 79 (1954). See also, e.g., JOEL FEINBERG, HARMLESS WRONGDOING (1988); Mitchell N. Berman, The Evidentiary Theory of Blackmail: Taking Motives Seriously, 65 U. CHI. L. REV. 795 (1998); George P. Fletcher, Blackmail: The Paradigmatic Crime, 141 U. PA. L. REV. 1617 (1993); Leo Katz, Blackmail and Other Forms of Arm-Twisting, 141 U.
    [Show full text]
  • *********************************************** the “Officially Released” Date That Appears Near the Be- Ginning of Each
    *********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ELIZABETH K. TURNER (AC 41179) Lavine, Prescott and Bright, Js. Syllabus Convicted, following a jury trial, of various crimes, including felony murder and robbery in the first degree in connection with the stabbing death of two victims, B and P, the defendant appealed. B had invited the defendant and her husband, T, to live with her in her home. Several months later, the defendant directed T to tell B that the defendant was in jail and needed money for bail, which was not true.
    [Show full text]
  • Construing Federal Criminal Statutes Employing Terms Which Have No Established Common-Law Meaning: Section 2113(B) of the Federal Bank Robbery Act, 16 J
    UIC Law Review Volume 16 Issue 1 Article 6 Fall 1982 Construing Federal Criminal Statutes Employing Terms which Have No Established Common-Law Meaning: Section 2113(b) of the Federal Bank Robbery Act, 16 J. Marshall L. Rev. 125 (1982) Linas J. Kelecius Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Linas J. Kelecius, Construing Federal Criminal Statutes Employing Terms which Have No Established Common-Law Meaning: Section 2113(b) of the Federal Bank Robbery Act, 16 J. Marshall L. Rev. 125 (1982) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol16/iss1/6 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONSTRUING FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTES EMPLOYING TERMS WHICH HAVE NO ESTABLISHED COMMON-LAW MEANING: SECTION 2113(b) OF THE FEDERAL BANK ROBBERY ACT The Federal Bank Robbery Act' in section 2113(b) provides that whoever "takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any property or money" of a bank is liable for a fine and imprisonment.2 The circuits are in disagreement as to the meaning of this language; four circuits 3 have construed the lan- guage to cover only common-law larceny, 4 but four other circuits 1. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a)-2113(h) (1976). 2. The text of 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13: Crimes Against Property
    Chapter 13: Crimes Against Property Chapter Overview: This chapter concerns the wrongful taking of another person’s property. There are many categories of such crimes, including larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, theft, identity theft, computer crime, receiving stolen property, forgery and uttering, robbery, and extortion. Larceny is the removal of goods or money from a person without his or her consent with the intention of permanently depriving them of control over and physical possession of said goods or money. This crime requires asportation, or movement, of the stolen property, even if only a very slight one. It also requires caption of the property, asserting control over it. The intent to permanently deprive the victim of the property is the essential mens rea element of the crime and distinguishes it from a taking with the intent so simply borrow the property. If larceny is committed through the use of violence or threat of violence, then the crime is called robbery. Robbery also includes some specialized categories like carjacking. Where robbery requires the use of violence or threat of immediate violence, a separate crime called extortion is a theft that is made under the threat of future violence or other future harm. When larceny was found to be insufficient to cover all types of theft that were thought unacceptable, English Parliament passed law against embezzlement of property, which today can be considered a felony or misdemeanor dependent upon the value of the embezzled property. While larceny punishes a criminal taking, embezzlement is designed to cover crimes in which the taking itself is lawful but the perpetrator unlawfully converts the property after taking possession of it, meaning that they cause a serious interference with the owner’s property rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Mnemonics
    CRIMINAL LAW MNEMONICS 1) CRIM K is a criminal’s state of mind: C – CRIMINALLY negligently R – RECKLESSLY (a.k.a. wantonly) I – INTENTIONALLY M – MALICIOUSLY K – KNOWINGLY 2) FIGS MAN kills: F – FELONY murder I – INTENTIONAL murder G – Defendant’s conduct created a GRAVE risk of death. Defendant was aware of the risk and consciously disregarded it displaying a depraved indifference to the victim’s life S – Intent to cause SERIOUS bodily harm that results in death (in NY, this is voluntary manslaughter) MAN – MANSLAUGHTER (voluntary or involuntary) 3) BRAKERS can commit felony murder, but not in a LAB: B – BURGLARY R – ROBBERY A – ARSON K – KIDNAPPING E – ESCAPE from police custody after arrest R – RAPE S – Criminal SEXUAL act L – LARCENY A – ASSAULT B – BATTERY 4) A CUB can’t be sentenced to death for felony murder: C – D didn’t COMMIT, command, or request the homicide U – D was UNARMED with a deadly instrument or substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury AND B – D had no reason to BELIEVE another co-conspirator was armed or intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death © 2015 Pieper Bar Review 1 5) HIS negates a murderous intent: H – Committed in the HEAT of passion (HOP) or under extreme emotional disturbance I – INSANITY or infancy of killer S – SELF-DEFENSE or defense of others/justification (*if established it’s a complete defense) 6) DAMS gives you robbery and burglary 1st degree: D – DISPLAYED what appeared to be a firearm w/ the intent of forcibly taking property A – D was ARMED w/ a deadly weapon M – D MENACED the victim using a dangerous instrument S – D or accomplice caused SERIOUS physical injury to a non-participant during the robbery or in immediate flight from the crime scene.
    [Show full text]
  • Blackmail, Inc
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Spring 1983 Blackmail, Inc. Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "Blackmail, Inc.," 50 University of Chicago Law Review 553 (1983). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Blackmail, Inc. Richard A. Epsteint Although the crime of blackmail seldom has been the subject of appellate litigation, it has received an extensive analysis within the scholarly literature.1 It might be expected that this analysis would focus upon the traditional concerns of criminal law: mens rea, permissible defenses, burdens of proof, and modes of sentenc- ing. But in fact the query has been posed at a far more fundamen- tal level: why is blackmail a crime at all? The frequent appearance of this question is troublesome, for it implicitly identifies a power- ful cleavage between our most cherished instincts about criminal responsibility and our collective ability to justify them, even to ourselves. To be sure, the failure to come up with a well-accepted account of why blackmail is both wrong and criminal has not yet had any practical consequences, for to date no legislature or judge has sought to remove blackmail from the list of criminal offenses. But at the same time, it would surely count as a welcome step to- ward public understanding if we could explain first, why intellec- tual doubts over the criminal nature of blackmail persist, and sec- ond, how to resolve those doubts in favor of the popular sentiment for its criminality, a sentiment that in my view rests on far firmer foundations than has generally been appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931 CHAPTER XXXVI FALSE PRETENSES and FALSE REPRESENTATION 750.218 False Pretenses
    THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931 CHAPTER XXXVI FALSE PRETENSES AND FALSE REPRESENTATION 750.218 False pretenses with intent to defraud; violation; penalty; enhanced sentence based on prior convictions; “false pretense” defined. Sec. 218. (1) A person who, with the intent to defraud or cheat makes or uses a false pretense to do 1 or more of the following is guilty of a crime punishable as provided in this section: (a) Cause a person to grant, convey, assign, demise, lease, or mortgage land or an interest in land. (b) Obtain a person's signature on a forged written instrument. (c) Obtain from a person any money or personal property or the use of any instrument, facility, article, or other valuable thing or service. (d) By means of a false weight or measure obtain a larger amount or quantity of property than was bargained for. (e) By means of a false weight or measure sell or dispose of a smaller amount or quantity of property than was bargained for. (2) If the land, interest in land, money, personal property, use of the instrument, facility, article, or valuable thing, service, larger amount obtained, or smaller amount sold or disposed of has a value of less than $200.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the value, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine. (3) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the value, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine: (a) The land, interest in land, money, personal property, use of the instrument, facility, article, or valuable thing, service, larger amount obtained, or smaller amount sold or disposed of has a value of $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.
    [Show full text]
  • How Moral Concepts Inform the Law of Perjury, Fraud, and False Statements Stuart P
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 53 | Issue 1 Article 2 1-2001 Lying, Misleading, and Falsely Denying: How Moral Concepts Inform the Law of Perjury, Fraud, and False Statements Stuart P. Green Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stuart P. Green, Lying, Misleading, and Falsely Denying: How Moral Concepts Inform the Law of Perjury, Fraud, and False Statements, 53 Hastings L.J. 157 (2001). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol53/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lying, Misleading, and Falsely Denying: How Moral Concepts Inform the Law of Perjury, Fraud, and False Statements by STUART P. GREEN* Introduction The term "legal moralism" has traditionally referred to the view that it is permissible to use government sanctions, including criminal sanctions, to enforce prohibitions on conduct that is immoral but not directly harmful (or even offensive) to others or self. Legal moralists of this stripe thus embrace the anti-liberal view that the state may legitimately criminalize acts such as adultery, incest, and prostitution, even when performed in private by consenting adults.' In recent years, however, "legal moralism" has also come to mean something else. The term is now frequently used to refer to the view that, as Dan Kahan has put it, "law is suffused with morality and, ' Associate Professor of Law, Louisiana State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Larceny – Common
    Larceny – Common Law (1) Wrongful and fraudulent taking and (2) Carrying away of the (3) Personal Property of another, with the (4) Intent to permanently deprive the true owner of his/her property Other points: Larceny is a specific intent crime! Good faith is a defense because it’s a crime of “specific intent” (e.g. defendant really thought victim owed the money) Slight movement enough to satisfy the “carrying away” element Stealing symbolic property is not larceny because it is not considered to be personal property (examples: deed to real property, stock certificate, patent certificate, title to a car) Larceny can’t be committed if you have possession of the property, but can be committed if you have mere “custody” of the property. Larceny by Trick: Taking the property with permission gained through a lie as to present circumstances. Other Theft Crimes – Common Law – Part 1 Embezzlement: Fraudulent appropriation to a person’s own use or benefit of property or money entrusted to that person by another (1)Fraudulent conversion of the (2) personal property of another (3) with the intent to permanently deprive the true owner of such property Only difference between larceny and embezzlement is the defendant himself. In embezzlement, the defendant has a duty of trust vis-à-vis the victim and originally had lawful possession of the property. Other Theft Crimes – Common Law – Part 1 (cont.) False Pretenses: (1) Obtaining title to (2) the property (not just personal) of another (3) by false representation With larceny and embezzlement, there is no change of title, just of possession.
    [Show full text]