Page1 University of Maine at Presque Isle College of Professional Programs Criminal Justice Department www.umpi.edu/programs/cpp/criminal-justice CRJ 250 - Criminal Law Fall 2012 Monday and Wednesday 11:00-12:15 pm Pullen 216 Instructor: Charles Johnson, Ph.D. Office: Normal 207 Phone 207-768-9598 Office hours: Mon. & Wed. 10:00 am 11:00 am and Tues. & Thurs. 8:30 am 9:30 am Email: charles.johnson1@umpi.edu Disclaimer: This syllabus is intended to be used as a guide for your course, and it is subject to modification at the discretion of the instructor. Course Description: This course is a study of criminal law and its application to society. It includes a study of the philosophy and rationale we use in America to control human behavior. Course methodologies include textbook and legal case studies. Course Objectives: At the end of this course, the student will be able to articulate the reasons for laws and their enforcement by public officials. S/he will be able to identify specific offenses, the legal code(s) that pertain to them, and s/he will be able to determine whether or not police/prosecution have enough evidence to move a specific case through the legal system. This course is intended to give the student a robust knowledge of the legal system and process in use in the United States. Prerequisites: CRJ 100 Required Texts: Samaha, J. (2011 or 2011). Criminal Law (10 th ). Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth. ISBN 9780495807490 9780495812319 Beck, G. (2012). Cowards: What Politicians, Radicals, and the Media Refuse to Say. New York, N.Y.: Mercury Radio Arts. ISBN 9781451693478 Caveat Emptor re Samaha text: The publisher of the text (Cengage) uses two different ISBNs for Criminal Law. The text was initially released for January, 2010, but it was apparently updated in 2011. The ISBNs are confusing, however. When pricing out your
Page2 texts, you can actually use either of the text versions. You are responsible to prepare for each of the cases listed below in this syllabus. If they do not appear in your text, use the electronic library on the UMPI website to research the case (use the LexisNexis Academic database). Additional Helpful Reading Materials: Maine Revised Statute Title 17-A Maine Criminal Code (posted in your BlackBoard course space). Instructions For Class Assignments/Papers: All written assignments must be submitted using APA style, typed double spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font, printed on one side, with 1.5 margins. Include your name, instructor s name, course name and number, and appropriate case information as outlined in the instructions below. Page numbers are required on pages #2 through the end. Put one staple at the top left of the paper. All papers submitted to me for any course are graded on content, punctuation, grammar and spelling. Any paper that contains numerous errors in punctuation, grammar or spelling will be graded no higher than a C. Case Brief Assignments During the first week of class, your instructor will distribute several important cases for students to brief. Each student will be assigned two (2) cases to brief, both of which will be due on the due dates listed in the calendar below (#1 due Sept. 24 and #2 due Oct. 15). Case briefs may be submitted in advance of the due dates, but not past the due dates. There are no exceptions to the due dates, so please plan accordingly. Case Brief Format Name of the Case Citation Vote: Author(s): Concurrences: if applicable (please list) Dissents: if applicable (please list) Facts: This should be approximately 1-2 paragraphs that contain the facts of the case including information about the defendant and the path the case took before being heard by the court. Issue: This explains the overall issue being examined by the court and its relevance to our modern penal code or criminal justice process. Court: Name of court (i.e., Minnesota Court of Appeals, U.S. Supreme Court) Court Decision: Affirmed, Reversed, or Reversed and Remanded
Page3 Reasoning: This is the reason why the court decided the way it did. Case Significance: Why did the court examine this case and how did its outcome affect our system. Concurrences: You only add this section if a concurrence was published. Make sure to include the Judge/Justice who authored it, and make sure to separate each individual publishing. Dissents: You only add this section if a dissent was published. Make sure to include the Judge/Justice who authored it, and make sure to separate each individual publishing. Comments: Your own personal thoughts here. How would you rule if you were a judge. Cases Eligible For Class Discussions Chapter 1 Chaney v. State Chapter 2 Brown v. State State v. Metzger People v. Rokicki Griswold v. Connecticut Kennedy v. Louisiana Ewing v. California Gall v. U.S. Lawrence v. Texas District of Columbia v. Heller Roper v. Simmons Apprendi v. New Jersey (also see - Chapter 10 Beck S.D. v. M.J.R. (2 N.J. 3d, 412 [2010]) this case is posted on BlackBoard) Chapter 3 Brown v. State King v. Cogdon People v. Decina State v. Jerrett Commonwealth v. Pestinakas Porter v. State Robinson v. California People v. Oliver Chapter 4 Harris v. State State v. Stark State v. Jantzi
Koppersmith v. State State v. Loge People v. Armitage Velazquez v. State People v. Kibbe State v. Sexton Chapter 5 People v. Goetz State v. Thomas State v. Harold Fish People of the State of New York, Plaintiffs, v. John Gray et al., Defendants State v. Shelley Queen v. Dudley & Stephens Chapter 6 U.S. v. Hinckley People v. Drew State v. K.R.L. Oliver v. State Sherman v. U.S. DePasqule v. U.S. State v. Phipps Chapter 7 State v. Ulvinen State v. Chism Dunn v. Commonwealth U.S. v. Arthur Anderson, L.L.P. State v. Tomaino State v. Akers Chapter 8 People v. Kimball Young v. State State v. Damms People v. Rizzo Commonwealth v. Peaslee State v. Robins State v. Kordas Le Barron v. State People v. Johnson U.S. v. Garcia Chapter 9 State v. Cotton Byford v. State Duest v. State State v. Snowden People v. Hudson People v. Thomas Page4
Page5 People v. O Neil Commonwealth v. Schnopps State v. Mays Chapter 10 Commonwealth v. Berkowitz State in the Interest of M.T.S. Hamilton v. Cameron State v. Hoying People v. Allen Chapter 10 Beck S.D. v. M.J.R. (2 N.J. 3d, 412 [2010]) this case is posted on BlackBoard Chapter 11 People v. Olivo; People v. Gasparik; People v. Spatzier U.S. v. Madoff U.S. v. Coughlin State v. Curley Commonwealth v. Zingari Sonnier v. State Commonwealth v. Mitchell Jewell v. State Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc. U.S. v. Anchetta Chapter 12 Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco Gresham v. Peterson City of Chicago v. Morales City of Saint Paul v. East Side Boys and Selby Siders Chapter 13 Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey Sample Case Brief For a sample case brief, see the bottom of this syllabus Course Evaluation: Case Briefs 10 points each x 2 = 20 (20%) Midterm Exam 40 points (40%) Final Exam 40 points (40%) Total 100 points (100%) Grade Deductions Your instructor frequently will call on students in the class to discuss cases that are both relevant to the course discussions and that are listed in the course text. A bingo machine will be used to randomly assign the duty of case briefs to students. If the student is either not present in class when called, or is incapable of briefing the case to the satisfaction of the instructor, 10 points will be deducted from the course grade of that student. Students are protected by a limit of 30 points loss for the semester. As can be verified below,
Page6 should a student lose 30 points, his/her class grade will be no greater than C+ (and will probably be much lower). Please prepare for your classes accordingly. Percentage Letter Grade Translation: 95-100% = A 65-69% = C 90-94% = A- 60-64% = C- 85-89% = B+ 55-59% = D 80-84% = B 50-54% = D- 75-79% = B- <50% = F 70-74% = C+ COURSE SCHEDULE FOLLOWS
Page7 September 2012 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 4 5 6 7 8 Introduction to the class Review of Syllabus 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Chapter 1 Criminal Law and Criminal Punishment Chapter 1 Criminal Law and Criminal Punishment 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Chapter 2 Constitutional Limits of Criminal Law & Chapter 2 Constitutional Limits of Criminal Law & Chapter 10 Beck Sharia law in America Chapter 10 Beck Sharia law in America 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Chapter 3 The General Principles of Criminal Liability; Actus Reus 30 CASE BRIEF #1 DUE Chapter 3 The General Principles of Criminal Liability; Actus Reus
Page8 October 2012 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Chapter 4 The General Principles of Criminal Liability; Mens Rea, Concurrence, Causation, and Ignorance & Mistake 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chapter 4 The General Principles of Criminal Liability; Mens Rea, Concurrence, Causation, and Ignorance & Mistake 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 FALL BREAK NO CLASS FALL BREAK NO CLASS FALL BREAK NO CLASS 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Chapter 5 Defenses Catch-up - to Criminal Liability; Justifications Review CASE BRIEF #2 DUE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Midterm Chapter 6 Defenses to Criminal Liability; Excuse 28 29 30 31 Chapter 7 Parties to a Crime and Vicarious Liability Chapter 7 Parties to a Crime and Vicarious Liability
Page9 November 2012 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Chapter 8 Inchoate Crimes Chapter 8 Inchoate Crimes 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Chapter 10 Crimes against Persons II; Criminal Sexual Conduct, Bodily Injury, and Personal Restraint Chapter 9 Crimes against Persons I; Murder & Manslaughter Chapter 10 - Beck 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Chapter 10 Crimes against Persons II; Criminal Sexual Conduct, Bodily Injury, and Personal Restraint THANKSGIVING BREAK BREAK THANKSGIVING BREAK Chapter 10 - Beck 25 26 27 28 29 30 Chapter 12 Crimes Against Public Order Chapter 11 Crimes Against Property Chapter 4 Beck Economic Terrorism: Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction
Page10 December 2012 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Chapter 13 Crimes Against the State Chapter 13 Crimes Against the State Chapter 7 Beck The New Police State Chapter 7 Beck The New Police State Chapter 13 Beck The Coming Intelligence Explosion Chapter 13 Beck The Coming Intelligence Explosion 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Review and catch-up Review and catch-up 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 FINAL EXAM 3 5 pm 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Page11 Academic Fraud: Students are reminded that the University regulations on instructional offences and plagiarism are strictly enforced. In particular, students are warned against plagiarism, cheating, and/or handing in the same assignment for two or more courses without formal permission of all instructors involved. Plagiarizing includes using or passing another s ideas as one s own without clearly acknowledging the original author or thinker. All students should be familiar with UMPI policy regarding academic dishonesty. Please see your catalogue and www.umpi.maine.edu/stulife/stacintp.htm. Human Rights Statement: The Criminal Justice Department supports the rights of instructors and students to work/study without fear of prejudice on the basis of gender, race, class, age, disabilities, sexual orientation, and political or religious affiliation. Special Accommodations and Disability Services: Students with disabilities needing accommodations or assistance with coursework or testing should contact Mary Kate Barbosa, Director of Student Support Services, at 768-9613. Please note that students with disabilities must present current and complete documentation to receive accommodations. Tutoring: Student Support Services offers tutoring to all students via experienced professional and peer tutors. If you are interested in receiving tutoring, please contact Meghan Lightbown, SSS Assistant, at 768-9614. UMPI Writing Center: Located on the first floor of South Hall, the writing center offers one-on-one consultations for writers at all levels of course work, at all stages of the writing process. Call 768-9615 or stop by to set up an appointment. For more information you can also check out their web page at http://www.umpi.edu/programs/cas/english/writing-center. If you use the writing center, please be sure to take with you all relevant course syllabi, assignments, etc. Classroom Decorum: For the sake of keeping this course at a professional level, please refrain from using cell phones, texting devices, and laptop computers in inappropriate ways. You are encouraged to use modern technology in class if it enhances your learning experience, but please don t become a distraction. The instructor reserves the right to require a student withdraws from the course if his/her behavior becomes distractive. ETS Proficiency Profile In order to meet regional accreditation standards, UMPI must assess student learning in our General Education program. One way we do that is by administering the ETS Proficiency Profile test to all incoming freshmen and all graduating seniors. It is absolutely imperative that UMPI have a representative sample of its students complete the Proficiency Profile each year. Therefore, as a graduating student in this course you
Page12 will be expected to complete the assessment at a designated time this semester. It is an expectation that you will complete the assessment before the end of the semester. As a member of the university community, I pledge to: Pursue academic excellence, Support open inquiry and civil expression, Listen respectfully to the viewpoints of others, Participate responsibly in the life of the community, Conserve and enhance the beauty of the campus, and Help all members of the university community to realize their potential Sample Case Brief Garnett v. State 332 Md. 571, 632 A. 2d 797 Vote: 6-2 Author(s): Chief Justice Murphy Concurrences: N/A Dissents: Judge Eldridge; Judge Bell Facts: Raymond Garnett was a 20 year-old mildly retarded man. He was described as reading on a third-grade level and socially interacted at school with others on the level of an 11 or 12 year old. He was introduced by a friend to Erica Frazier, then age 13, in November or December of 1990. They talked occasionally by telephone. On February 28, 1991, at about 9:00 pm Raymond stopped by Erica s house apparently to use the phone to call for a ride home. She opened her bedroom window and, according to Raymond, she just told me to get a ladder and climb up her window. He did. The two talked and later had sex. Raymond left about 4:30 am. Erica gave birth to a baby on November 19, 1991. Raymond is the baby s father. Raymond was tried and convicted of second degree rape. In Maryland, this means that sexual intercourse between a person under 14 years old and another person at least four years older than the complainant. At the trial the defense gave evidence that both Erica and her friends had told Raymond that she was 16, and that he had acted with that belief. The trial court said the evidence was immaterial because, It is in the Court s opinion a strict liability offense. The court sentenced Raymond to 5 years in prison, suspended the sentence and imposed 5 years of probation and ordered Raymond to pay restitution to Erica and her family. Issue: The issue is should an explicit mens rea (level of mental intent) be required of strict liability offenses. Raymond based his appeal on the meaning of the criminal law, that it exists to assess and punish morally culpable behavior. He stated that such culpability or
Page13 blameworthiness is absent in his case. He asked the Court to add onto the law an implicit mens rea requirement. He said that it was unjust, under the circumstances of this case which led him to believe that his conduct was lawful. Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland Court Decision: Affirmed. Reasoning: Chief Justice Murphy s reasoning is that although many states, for good reasons, have introduced a mens rea element into their statutory rape laws, the way Maryland s law was written makes it clear that the legislature purposefully did not allow mens rea, in the form of mistake of age, to be a factor in deciding culpability. He thinks it is therefore the job of the legislature to amend the law and that it would be inappropriate for the courts to do it. This means that defendants in extraordinary cases, like Raymond, will need to rely upon the tempering discretion of the trial court He also states several reasons why he thinks the legislature intended that statutory rape be regarded as a strict liability offense. Chief Justice Murphy stated that this is a strict liability offense and that the way the law is written means that it should be interpreted (by citizens and the courts) so strictly and should include Raymond. Furthermore, that it remains the legislature s job to rewrite the law to cover situations such as Raymond s. However, he also stated that the trial court would need to use discretion in similar situations. Since the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed Raymond s conviction, it can be inferred that the Court felt that Raymond s sentence (suspended prison, 5 years probation, and restitution) was a reasonable outcome although the law failed to address this specific situation. Case Significance: Strict criminal liability elements and punishments associated with strict liability offenses do not have to be applied by the courts as strictly as it appears if unusual circumstances warrant it. Concurrences: N/A (not applicable OR none given) Dissents: Judge Eldridge Judge Bell Judge Eldridge s opinion is that although the majority (the rest of the Court of Appeals, except Bell) considers this a strict liability offense, he does not see it as that limited. He states that although an ordinary defendant s mistake about the age of the sexual partner is not a defense, this does not mean that the statute contains no mens rea requirement at all. He disagrees with Chief Justice Murphy s assertion that the legislature intended that the law would impose criminal liability regardless of the defendant s state of mind. He contends that although an ordinary person would be expected to at least be aware of a risk that the younger person is not above the age of consent, there is no indication that the legislature intended that awareness of risk would apply equally to someone with mental impairment. Judge Bell also dissented. He stated that he does not believe that the General Assembly can in every case subject a defendant to strict liability. He states that to
Page14 interpret so strictly this subsection of the statutory rape law to mean that the state is not required to prove that the defendant possesses the necessary mental state to commit the crime offends a principle of justice inconsistent with due process. In short, the two judges stated that this (statutory rape) is a strict liability offense for most individuals, except someone like Raymond who is mentally impaired and that the law should not be so strictly interpreted as to not make an exception in a case such as this. Comments: It was fascinating to see Judge Eldridge and Chief Justice Murphy both cite the same sentences in the criminal statute as evidence in support of their opposing positions. Maryland s statutory rape law makes it possible for a minor to be convicted of statutory rape. Since the law does not state that the perpetrator must be 18 years old, only that the perpetrator is four or more years older than the victim and the victim is under 14 years old, the law would apply to a 17 year-old perpetrator and a 13 year-old victim. I find that interesting, however, because other statutory rape laws require that the perpetrator is an adult, 18 years or older.