DOCSLIB.ORG

CHAPTER 10 Theft, Burglary, and Robbery

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR chapterSALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © JonesTheft, & Bartlett Learning, Burglary, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC 10NOT FORand SALE OR Robbery DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION KEY TERMS “Such hounds have a way aggravated robbery departure signature sound suppressor sooner or later of biting the approach to entry entry access specialty robbery © Joneshand & that Bartlett feeds them.Learning, They LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONasportation NOTfence FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONspecific intent will be arrested for this bur- ATM robbery habit pattern street robbery glary. The police are already bait money jimmy stripped after them. ” bona fide joyriding substance-habituated © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC Sherlock Holmes breaking and entering larceny robber NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION “The Adventure of the bump-and-grab method of entry target selection Three Gables” burglary modus operandi (MO) theft career robber (plural modi operandi) tire impression © Jones & Bartlett carjackingLearning, LLC opportunistic© Jones robbers & Bartletttoolmark Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION casing point of entry tracing chop residential robbery truck hijacking (home invasion) commercial robbery unauthorized use of a show of force motor vehicle © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLCconversion © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOTsmash-and-grab FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONvehicle identification delivery van robbery number (VIN) STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC Upon completion of this chapter, students will be able to: NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Distinguish the different types of burglary Identify the entry techniques used to facilitate a burglary Distinguish the different types of robberies © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC Identify the modus operandi of robbery NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Describe the difference between modus operandi and signature © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © Shutterstock / happykanppy © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 9781284082852_CH10_Dutelle.indd 226 22/12/17 8:52 pm Burglary 227 © Jones Introduction& Bartlett Learning, LLC jurisdictions© Jones have & Bartlett added a newLearning, section toLLC their larceny penal codes. In addition to statutes prohibiting NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION In common law, NOT FORIn SALE common OR law, DISTRIBUTION taking the property of another theft of a motor vehicle, which involves intent taking the property for the purpose of depriving that person of own- to permanently deprive ownership, there are of another for the ership was called larceny. It required three basic now statutes dealing with unauthorized use of purpose of depriv- elements: a motor vehicle. The lesser deprivation reduces ing that person of ownership; it 1. A taking © Jones & Bartlett Learning,the seriousness LLC of the offense in those© Jones jurisdic -& Bartlett Learning, LLC tions that recognize joyriding as differing from required three basic 2. Asportation (movementNOT FOR of the SALE items taken) OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALEelements: OR a taking, DISTRIBUTION outright theft. asportation (move- 3. An intent to deprive the owner Once theft offenses were consolidated, the ment of the items magnitude of a theft offense became based on taken), and an intent All three elements are problematic in our how much was taken. Excepted from this con- to deprive the owner contemporary understanding of theft. In many © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC solidation were the© offensesJones &of Bartlettburglary andLearning, LLC instances, a person may be convinced to vol- robbery. The elements of burglary differ in sig- unauthorized untarilyNOT part FOR with SALE his or her OR property, DISTRIBUTION which is NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION nificant degree from those of theft, and burglary use of a motor obviously counter to the common-law notion of is still treated as a separate and more serious vehicle “taking.” Some things are so large as to prohibit offense than theft. Because of the personal Use of a vehicle movement, such as a house, land, and trees, yet confrontation and threat of personal violence by someone other © Jones &today, Bartlett through Learning, fraud, a person LLC may have his or involved© Jones in robbery, & Bartlett it too isLearning, treated as aLLC sepa- than the owner her house, land, or trees stolen. Clearly, for lar- rate and more serious offense. without the owner’s NOT FORceny SALE to make OR sense DISTRIBUTION today, there must have been NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION permission an evolution of the elements. Taking may now Burglary be real or constructive, and asportation may asportation also be real or constructive. There is an old joke about shooting burglars Movement of items taken from another; In common law and presently in some juris- that goes like this: If you shoot a burglar out- © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlettone of the threeLearning, LLC dictions, there are numerous types of theft, with side your home, drag him back inside in order NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALEbasic elementsOR DISTRIBUTION different names and definitions, in which one of to avoid legal consequences. The conventional required for larceny the traditional elements of theft is lacking. Theft wisdom is that a homeowner can use deadly in common law by false pretext, for example, occurs when a force in defense of his or her property. This may person voluntarily relinquishes property under or may not be true, depending on state burglary conversion some© pretext Jones that & allows Bartlett the thiefLearning, to deprive LLC the penal codes. That is© why Jones it is in & the Bartlett best interest Learning, Using LLCproperty of investigators to not only understand the penal ownerNOT of the FOR property. SALE Theft OR by DISTRIBUTION embezzlement NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONentrusted to a per- occurs when a person entrusted with property code definition of burglary but all the cases in a son by another for uses the property to his or her own advantage state that have added to or interpreted that code. the former’s advan- (conversion) and with the intent to deprive the tage and with the owner of possession. Types of Burglary intent to deprive the owner of possession © Jones & BartlettOver time, Learning, legislatures LLC and the judiciary Most© burglariesJones & are Bartlett products Learning, of opportunity LLC per- have recognized many related offenses that NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION petratedNOT byFOR noncareer SALE burglars. OR DISTRIBUTION Open doors and differ in some degree from basic theft, and the windows are an opportunist’s invitation. Uncol- breaking and entering result has been an ever-expanding and confusing lected mail and newspapers are also an invi- Term that was network of theft-related statutes. Many jurisdic- tation. Originally, burglary was referred to as originally used for tions, aware of the imaginativeness of thieves, breaking and entering and may still be called burglary because it decided to consolidate© theJones theft & offenses Bartlett into Learning, that by investigators.LLC Burglaries in common© Jones law & Bartlettrequired a break-Learning, LLC one statute, forsakingNOT the categories FOR SALE of theft OR by DISTRIBUTIONrequired a breaking (forced entry) componentNOT FOR SALEing (forced OR entry) DISTRIBUTION false pretext, conversion by a bailee, shoplifting, and a physical entry into the premises. Today, component and a theft from a person, acquisition of property by neither element is required, but both generally physical entry into threat, swindling, swindling by worthless check, are present. The breaking component is lack- the premises embezzlement, extortion, receiving or conceal- ing when someone who is originally invited ing embezzled© Jones property, & Bartlett receiving Learning, or concealing LLC onto the premises extends© Jones the & visit Bartlett and secrets Learning, theft LLC stolenNOT property, FOR credit SALE card OR theft, DISTRIBUTION theft of trade him- or herself ontoNOT the FORpremises SALE to await OR anDISTRIBUTION An unlawful secrets, forgery, and fraud. These special types opportunity to commit theft. It is also lacking intentional appropri- of theft indicate how earnestly criminals work when entry is made through openings inviting ation of property to separate people from their property. access. Finally, there are those cases in which Theft has come to be defined as an unlaw- the burglar does not physically intrude on the joyriding Stealing an auto- ful intentional appropriation of property. Intent premises at all but, for example, pokes a stick © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC mobile for personal to deprive ownership is questionable as an ele- through an open window to withdraw a purse NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION enjoyment ment in only one type of theft: joyriding. Many on a nearby table. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION
Recommended publications
  • Winter 2012-2013

    Winter 2012-2013

    Love Grows . By Giving General The library is proud to announce that we have partnered with Toys for Tots to 2 serve as a drop-off location from now until Thursday, December 20. A donation box is located in the Youth Services Department. Friends 3 Also, the library will once again be a drop-off site for your holiday donations for the following local organizations: Families 4 • Crisis Center of South Suburbia (toys, misc. personal items, children's and women's clothing) Youth 5 • Tinley Park Food Pantry (non-perishable, non-expired, non-glass food items) Teens • Together We Cope (gift items for children and teens) 6 Separate boxes for each group will be located in the library lobby. Adults Collections run from Monday, November 26 through Friday, December 14, 2012. 7 – 10 Bookmobile Tinley Park Public Library 11 News and Program Guide General Winter 2012/2013 12 Monday – Friday 9 am – 9 pm Saturday An Afternoon with Sox Great 9 am – 5 pm Billy Pierce and author John O'Donnell Sunday Saturday, February 23 from 1:30 - 4 pm noon – 5 pm White Sox legend Billy Pierce will be appearing with John O'Donnell, author of Like Night and Day, A Look at Chicago Baseball, 1964 - 1969. John will talk about Closed: his experiences in the world of baseball as seen through the eyes of a child. Pierce Monday, December 24 will speak about his experiences with the Chicago White Sox. The program will be Tuesday, December 25 followed by an autograph session with books and photos available for purchase.
  • Charging Language

    Charging Language

    1. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abduction ................................................................................................73 By Relative.........................................................................................415-420 See Kidnapping Abuse, Animal ...............................................................................................358-362,365-368 Abuse, Child ................................................................................................74-77 Abuse, Vulnerable Adult ...............................................................................78,79 Accessory After The Fact ..............................................................................38 Adultery ................................................................................................357 Aircraft Explosive............................................................................................455 Alcohol AWOL Machine.................................................................................19,20 Retail/Retail Dealer ............................................................................14-18 Tax ................................................................................................20-21 Intoxicated – Endanger ......................................................................19 Disturbance .......................................................................................19 Drinking – Prohibited Places .............................................................17-20 Minors – Citation Only
  • INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General

    INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General

    INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General OFFICE: INDIANA BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES TITLE: FORGERY; PERJURY; THEFT CASE ID: 2017-12-0293 DATE: August 30, 2018 Inspector General Staff Attorney Kelly Elliott, after an investigation by Special Agent Mark Mitchell, reports as follows: The Indiana General Assembly charged the Office of Inspector General (OIG) with addressing fraud, waste, abuse, and wrongdoing in the executive branch of state government. IC 4-2-7-2(b). The OIG also investigates criminal activity and ethics violations by state workers. IC 4-2-7-3. The OIG may recommend policies and carry out other activities designed to deter, detect, and eradicate fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, and misconduct in state government. IC 4-2- 7-3(2). On March 23, 2017, the OIG received a complaint from the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) that alleged a former BMV employee, Richard Pringle, submitted false information to the BMV on personal certificate of title applications. OIG Special Agent Mark Mitchell conducted an investigation into this matter. Through the course of his investigation, Special Agent Mitchell interviewed Pringle and reviewed documentation received from BMV, including their internal investigation report on this matter. According to BMV’s investigative report of the allegations against Pringle, BMV found that Pringle submitted an application for a 1997 GMC Yukon in October 2016 that listed a sale price 1 that was different from the price the seller of the vehicle stated they sold it. At the conclusion of their investigation, BMV terminated Pringle’s employment in or around March 2017. Special Agent Mitchell reviewed the BMV certificate of title application for the 1997 GMC Yukon.
  • People V Gillis, Unpublished Opinion Per Curiam of the Court of Appeals, Issued

    People V Gillis, Unpublished Opinion Per Curiam of the Court of Appeals, Issued

    Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Chief Justice: Justices: Clifford W. Taylor Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Opinion Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman FILED APRIL 5, 2006 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 127194 JOHN ALBERT GILLIS, Defendant-Appellee. _______________________________ BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH MARKMAN, J. We granted leave to appeal to consider whether our state’s first-degree murder statute permits a felony-murder conviction “in the perpetration of” a first- or second-degree home invasion in which the homicide occurs several miles away from the dwelling and several minutes after defendant departed from the dwelling. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of first- degree felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b), with home invasion in the first degree, MCL 750.110a, as the predicate felony. Defendant appealed the convictions, asserting that he was no longer “in the perpetration” of home invasion at the time of the automobile collision that killed the victims. The Court of Appeals concluded that the accident was not “part of the continuous transaction of or immediately connected to the home invasion[,]” and, therefore, vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial on the charges of second-degree murder. People v Gillis, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 17, 2004 (Docket No. 245012), slip op at 3. We conclude that “perpetration” encompasses acts by a defendant that occur outside the definitional elements of the predicate felony and includes acts that occur during the unbroken chain of events surrounding that felony.
  • Investigation of Armed Home Invasion Robberies Leads to Arrest of 5 Suspects

    Investigation of Armed Home Invasion Robberies Leads to Arrest of 5 Suspects

    Palos Verdes Estates Police Department Press Release Mark Velez Chief of Police Investigation of armed home invasion robberies leads to arrest of 5 suspects On March 2, 2018, Palos Verdes Estates Police Department officers responded to a report of an armed home invasion robbery in the 700 block of Via La Cuesta. Officers and detectives arrived and documented this violent crime, examined forensic evidence and started an investigation. On July 8, 2018, PVEPD officers responded to another report of an armed home invasion robbery, which oc- curred in the 1300 block of Via Coronel. PVEPD officers and detectives again responded. Our detec- tives analyzed evidence from both scenes and believed both crimes were committed by the same suspects. Through an intense analysis of evidence and data, our detectives were able to identify 5 suspects who they believed to be associated with a South Los Angeles gang. With the assistance of the Tor- rance Police Department, hundreds of hours of surveillance was conducted and additional infor- mation was developed. Our detectives contacted other agencies who had similar home invasion rob- beries. PVEPD detectives developed enough evidence to believe this robbery crew was responsible for an additional 6 home invasion robberies committed in various cities throughout Los Angeles county. These cities included Rancho Palos Verdes, La Habra Heights, La Canada, Playa Del Rey and Palmdale. The estimated loss of these robberies was 1 million dollars. After this intense, fo- cused investigation and collaboration with allied agencies and the LA County District Attorney’s Of- fice, PVEPD detectives obtained arrest and search warrants.
  • A Chilling Look Back at Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's

    A Chilling Look Back at Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's

    Jeph Loeb Sale and Tim at A back chilling look Batman and Scarecrow TM & © DC Comics. All Rights Reserved. 0 9 No.60 Oct. 201 2 $ 8 . 9 5 1 82658 27762 8 COMiCs HALLOWEEN HEROES AND VILLAINS: • SOLOMON GRUNDY • MAN-WOLF • LORD PUMPKIN • and RUTLAND, VERMONT’s Halloween Parade , bROnzE AGE AnD bEYOnD ’ s SCARECROW i . Volume 1, Number 60 October 2012 Comics’ Bronze Age and Beyond! The Retro Comics Experience! EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Michael Eury PUBLISHER John Morrow DESIGNER Rich J. Fowlks COVER ARTIST Tim Sale COVER COLORIST Glenn Whitmore COVER DESIGNER Michael Kronenberg PROOFREADER Rob Smentek SPECIAL THANKS Scott Andrews Tony Isabella Frank Balkin David Anthony Kraft Mike W. Barr Josh Kushins BACK SEAT DRIVER: Editorial by Michael Eury . .2 Bat-Blog Aaron Lopresti FLASHBACK: Looking Back at Batman: The Long Halloween . .3 Al Bradford Robert Menzies Tim Sale and Greg Wright recall working with Jeph Loeb on this landmark series Jarrod Buttery Dennis O’Neil INTERVIEW: It’s a Matter of Color: with Gregory Wright . .14 Dewey Cassell James Robinson The celebrated color artist (and writer and editor) discusses his interpretations of Tim Sale’s art Nicholas Connor Jerry Robinson Estate Gerry Conway Patrick Robinson BRING ON THE BAD GUYS: The Scarecrow . .19 Bob Cosgrove Rootology The history of one of Batman’s oldest foes, with comments from Barr, Davis, Friedrich, Grant, Jonathan Crane Brian Sagar and O’Neil, plus Golden Age great Jerry Robinson in one of his last interviews Dan Danko Tim Sale FLASHBACK: Marvel Comics’ Scarecrow . .31 Alan Davis Bill Schelly Yep, there was another Scarecrow in comics—an anti-hero with a patchy career at Marvel DC Comics John Schwirian PRINCE STREET NEWS: A Visit to the (Great) Pumpkin Patch .
  • WALKER V. GEORGIA

    WALKER V. GEORGIA

    Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2008) 1 THOMAS, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARTEMUS RICK WALKER v. GEORGIA ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA No. 08–5385. Decided October 20, 2008 JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the denial of the peti- tion of certiorari. Petitioner brutally murdered Lynwood Ray Gresham, and was sentenced to death for his crime. JUSTICE STEVENS objects to the proportionality review undertaken by the Georgia Supreme Court on direct review of peti- tioner’s capital sentence. The Georgia Supreme Court, however, afforded petitioner’s sentence precisely the same proportionality review endorsed by this Court in McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U. S. 279 (1987); Pulley v. Harris, 465 U. S. 37 (1984); Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862 (1983); and Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976), and described in Pulley as a “safeguard against arbitrary or capricious sentencing” additional to that which is constitu- tionally required, Pulley, supra, at 45. Because the Geor- gia Supreme Court made no error in applying its statuto- rily required proportionality review in this case, I concur in the denial of certiorari. In May 1999, petitioner recruited Gary Lee Griffin to help him “rob and kill a rich white man” and “take the money, take the jewels.” Pet. for Cert. 5 (internal quota- tion marks omitted); 282 Ga. 774, 774–775, 653 S. E. 2d 439, 443, (2007). Petitioner and Griffin packed two bicy- cles in a borrowed car, dressed in black, and took a knife and stun gun to Gresham’s house.
  • Competing Theories of Blackmail: an Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory

    Competing Theories of Blackmail: an Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory

    Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory Paul H. Robinson,* Michael T. Cahill** & Daniel M. Bartels*** The crime of blackmail has risen to national media attention because of the David Letterman case, but this wonderfully curious offense has long been the favorite of clever criminal law theorists. It criminalizes the threat to do something that would not be criminal if one did it. There exists a rich liter- ature on the issue, with many prominent legal scholars offering their accounts. Each theorist has his own explanation as to why the blackmail offense exists. Most theories seek to justify the position that blackmail is a moral wrong and claim to offer an account that reflects widely shared moral intuitions. But the theories make widely varying assertions about what those shared intuitions are, while also lacking any evidence to support the assertions. This Article summarizes the results of an empirical study designed to test the competing theories of blackmail to see which best accords with pre- vailing sentiment. Using a variety of scenarios designed to isolate and test the various criteria different theorists have put forth as “the” key to blackmail, this study reveals which (if any) of the various theories of blackmail proposed to date truly reflects laypeople’s moral judgment. Blackmail is not only a common subject of scholarly theorizing but also a common object of criminal prohibition. Every American jurisdiction criminalizes blackmail, although there is considerable variation in its formulation. The Article reviews the American statutes and describes the three general approaches these provisions reflect.
  • The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy

    The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy

    California Law Review VOL. 61 SEPTEMBER 1973 No. 5 The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy Phillip E. Johnson* The literature on the subject of criminal conspiracy reflects a sort of rough consensus. Conspiracy, it is generally said, is a necessary doctrine in some respects, but also one that is overbroad and invites abuse. Conspiracy has been thought to be necessary for one or both of two reasons. First, it is said that a separate offense of conspiracy is useful to supplement the generally restrictive law of attempts. Plot- ters who are arrested before they can carry out their dangerous schemes may be convicted of conspiracy even though they did not go far enough towards completion of their criminal plan to be guilty of attempt.' Second, conspiracy is said to be a vital legal weapon in the prosecu- tion of "organized crime," however defined.' As Mr. Justice Jackson put it, "the basic conspiracy principle has some place in modem crimi- nal law, because to unite, back of a criniinal purpose, the strength, op- Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley. A.B., Harvard Uni- versity, 1961; J.D., University of Chicago, 1965. 1. The most cogent statement of this point is in Note, 14 U. OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW REv. 56, 61-62 (1956): "Since we are fettered by an unrealistic law of criminal attempts, overbalanced in favour of external acts, awaiting the lit match or the cocked and aimed pistol, the law of criminal conspiracy has been em- ployed to fill the gap." See also MODEL PENAL CODE § 5.03, Comment at 96-97 (Tent.
  • Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law

    Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law

    Indiana Law Journal Volume 33 Issue 1 Article 1 Fall 1957 Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law Jerome Hall Indiana University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Hall, Jerome (1957) "Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 33 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol33/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIANA LAW JOURNAL Volume 33 FALL 1957 Number I To perpetuate the memory of Professor Frank E. Horack, Jr., a scholarship and acquisition fund which will bear his name has been established by Indiana University. Readers of the Journal who desire to contribute to the fund are invited to send their gifts to either the Dean of the School of Law, or the I. U. Foundation, at Bloomington, Indiana. Checks may be made payable to the Foundation, and should indicate that they are to apply toward the FRANK E. HORACK, JR., MEMORIAL FUND. IGNORANCE AND MISTAKE IN CRIMINAL LAW JEROME HALLtI At the threshold of inquiry into the criminal liability of persons who commit harms under the influence of ignorance or mistake, one con- fronts an insistent perennial question-why should such persons be sub- jected to any criminal liability? Ignorantiafacti excwsat accords with the implied challenge.
  • False Statements and Perjury: a Sketch of Federal Criminal Law

    False Statements and Perjury: a Sketch of Federal Criminal Law

    False Statements and Perjury: A Sketch of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law May 11, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 98-807 False Statements and Perjury: A Sketch of Federal Criminal Law Summary Federal courts, Congress, and federal agencies rely upon truthful information in order to make informed decisions. Federal law therefore proscribes providing the federal courts, Congress, or federal agencies with false information. The prohibition takes four forms: false statements; perjury in judicial proceedings; perjury in other contexts; and subornation of perjury. Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the general false statement statute, outlaws material false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. It reaches false statements in federal court and grand jury sessions as well as congressional hearings and administrative matters but not the statements of advocates or parties in court proceedings. Under Section 1001, a statement is a crime if it is false regardless of whether it is made under oath. In contrast, an oath is the hallmark of the three perjury statutes in Title 18. The oldest, Section 1621, condemns presenting material false statements under oath in federal official proceedings. Section 1623 of the same title prohibits presenting material false statements under oath in federal court proceedings, although it lacks some of Section 1621’s traditional procedural features, such as a two-witness requirement. Subornation of perjury, barred in Section 1622, consists of inducing another to commit perjury. All four sections carry a penalty of imprisonment for not more than five years, although Section 1001 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than eight years when the offense involves terrorism or one of the various federal sex offenses.
  • Police Perjury: a Factorial Survey

    Police Perjury: a Factorial Survey

    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Police Perjury: A Factorial Survey Author(s): Michael Oliver Foley Document No.: 181241 Date Received: 04/14/2000 Award Number: 98-IJ-CX-0032 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. FINAL-FINAL TO NCJRS Police Perjury: A Factorial Survey h4ichael Oliver Foley A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The City University of New York. 2000 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. I... I... , ii 02000 Michael Oliver Foley All Rights Reserved This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.