Major Questions in Criminal Law - Essay Example

Criminal Law Q1(a) A man comes into your office to file a complaint against a coworker. They had worked on a major project together and presented it to their boss. However, their boss got the impression that the client in front of you had done most of the work and the boss complimented him on a job well done. After the presentation, when the client and the coworker were alone in the office, the coworker became angry. He threatened to break your client’s nose, which caused your client to fear for his safety. The angry coworker attempted to punch the client, but missed and hit the wall. Your client then left the office, so he was never actually injured. 1. Was a crime committed, if so what? 2. How would you substantiate your client’s story? 3. Would you recommend criminal or civil legation? Why? Ans: Yes, the co-worker of the client was liable for attempted battery assault. An assault, in criminal and tort law, is one in which a party threatens another with a bodily harm, and in which the person threatening has an apparent capability to do bodily harm if not prevented. This threat and the party’s apparent ability to carry it causes to put fear in the party being threatened. Assault does not require intent to cause battery so long as the threat sufficiently causes fear in the other party. Neither is actual physical contact required but if present converts the offense to battery and assault. In this case, attempted battery assault, which is a kind of assault, is applicable because there was no physical contact since the co-worker missed his target when he took a swung against the client. Since the co-worker missed the client and hit the wall, the client’s story could be substantiated by taking a look at the co-workers fist which if it really hit the wall would have been swollen already. Since no one was around when the incident happened, I would recommend a civil action rather than a criminal one because the quantum of evidence necessary in criminal actions are higher requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt because of the presumption of innocence in criminal cases, something that could not be attained by the client’s case because he was alone with the co-worker when it happened. Civil actions, on the other hand, require only a lesser quantum of proof in comparison with criminal actions which is mainly to convince the trier of facts that the plaintiff deserves the relief being sought. Q2(b) A drug addicted teenager wanted money to buy crack cocaine. He found a $500.00 check on the kitchen counter that was made out to his father. When his father left for work, the teenager took the check from the counter and signed his father’s name. He planned to cash the check and use the money to buy drugs. As he was driving to the check cashing place, he was involved in an accident and taken by ambulance to a local hospital. The police discovered the check when they were inventorying the teenager’s belongings at the hospital. 1. Was a crime committed and if so, what was it? 2. Was the collection of evidence legal? Why or why not? 3. How should this case be handled? 4. Would this case be suitable for a drug court? Ans: Yes, the fact that the drug addicted teenager signed his father’s name on the check specifically made out for his father constituted forgery. Forgery is the “signing of the name of another person or organization with intent to deceive” (Clore 1998 p. 270). It is the making falsely or materially altering of a writing - where such writing has the clear ability to defraud and has evident legal efficacy with intent to defraud. It has the following elements: (a) false making using paper and ink; (b) material alteration, of a document originally genuine but was altered by the forger by writing or filling it; (c) ability to defraud, which means that the writing looks genuine enough to defraud other people; (d) legal efficacy, which means that the document being forged constitutes affects another person’s right to something, and; (e) intent to defraud, implying that the forger’s purpose in forging the document is to fool somebody and not necessarily to steal. In forgery, the fact that the teen-ager son was not able to negotiate the check is of no moment. The test here is whether another might be fooled by the document which implies that forgery is complete upon having met all the elements above cited. Yes, under the Plain-View Doctrine, searches and seizures of objects that may later turn out to be incriminating to an individual that are within the plain sight of a police officer are legal and valid even without warrants because technically the officer did not conduct a search (Bergman & Berman-Barrett, 2008 p. 52). In the case at hand, the police were making an inventory of the things of the teenager son after the latter figured in a car accident and were not conducting any search, therefore a warrant was not necessary and since the forged check was in plain view, the discovery of the check came within the ambit of the Plain-View Doctrine. The police officers had a right to be at the hospital because of the accident and there was nothing wrong with them making sure that the things of the accident victim are all inventoried and accounted for and in this case, any item in their plain view that looked suspicious is subject to their seizure. This was parallel to the Court’s ruling in the case of Washington v Chrisman, 455 US 1 (1982) where it upheld the right of a police officer who seized marijuana seeds and pipe without warrants he saw on plain sight in a dormitory although he was there for another legal purpose. In line with the policy that minors and first time offenders are protected from the life stigma that a court proceeding can inflict on a youth, a diversion to specialized courts can be instituted at any stage to turn away such offenders from the formal legal process and take them to non-punitive, treatment oriented systems (Campbell 2002 p. 215). Since the forger in this case is a minor who is involved with substance abuse, the case should be handled carefully, especially if he is a first time offender and the case should be taken to the juvenile drug court. A juvenile court is a special court that handles substance-abusing minor offenders via “comprehensive supervision, drug testing, treatment services, and sanctions.” In this court, the judge often works with an intervention team composed of representatives from the social services program, the legal system and the community, which will then craft a plan suited to the individual that will address his problems and other issues related to substance abuse (McShane & Williams p 52). Set 3/Q1 Two burglars break into a mansion which they believe is unoccupied at the time. When they get to the master bedroom, they discover the homeowner is sleeping in the bed. But the homeowner hears the burglars walking away from the bedroom. The homeowner grabs a gun from the nightstand and begins to chase the two burglars. While they are running down the stairs in an effort to escape, the homeowner shoots and one of the burglars is struck in the chest and killed. The other runs out of the house and escapes. However, the next day, the police are able to identify him through fingerprints left at the house and since he is a known associate of the burglar that was killed. 1. Who should be charged with a crime? 2. What crime should the person be charged with? 3. How would the police get the evidence they need for a conviction? Ans: There are two individuals that are chargeable with a crime in the case at bar. First, the remaining burglar is liable for burglary and second, the homeowner could be sued for homicide. Burglary is an offense that is committed by breaking into and entering a building without the consent of the building’s owners for the purpose of committing a felony usually by stealing property from inside the building. The breaking and entry can be done without the necessity of forcibly opening entry and exit points (Bergman & Berman-Barrett 2008 p. 273-274). In the case at bar, while the burglar was not able to steal anything because of the unexpected presence of the homeowner, if it can be established that he, together with his deceased companion, broke in and entered the building to commit a felony, then the charge should be burglary. “With burglary, the key moment is the burglar’s entrance into the building”(Bergman & Berman-Barrett 2008 p. 275). However, if there are no circumstantial evidence that can be used to infer the offense of burglary, like for example there are no things taken from the house, then the offense of trespass can be used as a fallback. On the other hand, the homeowner should be charged with voluntary manslaughter under s 1112 of Title 18 of the US Code. According to the said provision manslaughter is the killing of a human being without malice and it is voluntary when done upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. The homeowner cannot justify the act of shooting and killing one of the burglars under the doctrine of self-defense because his life was not threatened at the time he discharged the gun. The burglars were fleeing even before he saw them and only heard them running away. Neither can he justify the use of deadly force as a means of defending his property. Although he has a right to defend his property under the Castle Doctrine, killing the burglar, who was at the time fleeing from him and trying to get out of the house, amounts to use of unreasonable force. Under s 3.06 (3) of the Model Penal Code (MPC), deadly force can only be used in the defense of property under the following circumstances: (i) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise under a claim of right to its possession; or (ii) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other felonious theft or property destruction and either; (1) has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or (2) the use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission or consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of serious bodily harm. None of the circumstances above are applicable to the case at hand simply because the burglars were already fleeing the minute they noticed the presence of the homeowner in the bedroom. They were not attempting to dispossess him of his property; they were not attempting to commit any felony by the time the homeowner noticed because they were hastily fleeing the scene, and; they never threatened to use deadly force on the homeowner, or that the non-use of the gun by the homeowner would have the effect of endangering him or his family because as previously stated, the burglars were already busy fleeing the scene by the time he noticed their presence in the house. In the case of People v Ceballos, 526 P. 2d 241, 116 Cal. Rptr. 233 (1974), a homeowner set up a trap gun pointed at the garage door meant to discharge when somebody opens it from the outside as a means to protect his house from burglars who had broken and entered his house while he was not around. Two boys destroyed his garage lock while he was away and the first boy who entered was hit by the trap gun. The Court held in this case that “Where the character and manner of the burglary do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm, there is no cause of exaction of human life, or for the use of deadly force. The character and manner of the burglary could not reasonably create such a fear unless the burglary threatened, or was reasonably believed to threaten, death or serious bodily harm.” Voluntary manslaughter, also called “heat of passion crime,” therefore is apt in this case because it is evident that the homeowner really intended to shoot and hit the fleeing burglars out of his anger in discovering that his house had been broken into by strangers. Set 4/Q1 A local vagrant is known to hang around a convenience store. The vagrant has been told several times by the store owner to leave and not hang around the store. The store owner is concerned that the vagrant is driving away business since he hangs around in the parking lot. The vagrant ignores the owner and continues to return to the store. He doesn’t buy anything; he just hangs around the store begging for money. 1. Has the vagrant committed any crime, if so, what? 2. Does the store owner have the right to make someone leave the store’s property? 3. Is it a violation of the vagrant’s rights forcing him to leave the store parking lot? Ans: There should be a vagrancy, anti-loitering or anti-begging law applicable to the person who has been hanging around and disturbing the flow of commerce in the vicinity of the convenience store. These laws are usually in the form of ordinances legislated by city or community councils. Since 1879, when federal courts ruled that several vagrancy laws were unconstitutional, because the effects of these laws were to criminalize the status or persons and not the offensive acts themselves, the federal government has relegated the enactment of vagrancy laws to cities and municipalities. Likewise, several anti-begging laws were found to be infringing upon the freedom of speech. Through court reviews in several cases over a considerable period of time, anti-begging laws evolved in municipalities (Smith 2005 p 1). In 1980, for example, the Court held in the case of Schaumberg v. Citizens for Environment, 444 US 620 that solicitation for contribution of money is protected by the Bill of Rights, although the Court limited the same to certain places in the community. Thus, city regulations which specified the time, place or mode of begging have weathered the legal challenges to anti-begging laws and made headways against outright total banning. In Memphis, for example, begging is allowed only during certain hours of the day and prohibited after sunset and before sunrise. In Fort Lauderdale, an ordinance which banned begging along beaches has been upheld by no less than the Supreme Court and in Los Angeles, Seattle and many other cities, aggressive begging is prohibited (Smith 2005 p 1). Yes, the store owner has the right to make anyone leave store premises if the individual is disturbing the flow of commerce in his store. It is the prerogative of any owner of a business enterprise to see to it that his business runs smoothly and without interference that could drive away customers. However, this does not seem applicable in the store’s parking lot since, it could not be said that the vagrant interferes with the flow of business unless he aggressively bothers the customers or commits offenses while there. Set 5/Q1 Donald meets his friends Sam and Thomas at a local nightclub. Sam and Thomas decide they want to buy some drugs and Donald gets into Donald’s car with them. They go to a street dealer and buy some cocaine. They then drive off to a local park where Sam and Thomas start to snort cocaine. Donald refuses to use any of the cocaine. Sam and Thomas have just finished snorting some cocaine when several police officers come onto the scene and arrest them. They are still in possession of a small amount of drugs. 1. What can the police do to Donald? 2. Will Donald be charged with a crime, if so what? 3. Can Donald defend his actions? Ans: If what prompted the police to arrest the trio was that they actually saw or suspect them of sniffing cocaine, then the arrest is valid because it would constitute one of the circumstances under which warrantless arrests are valid. In addition, in the case of United States v. Watson, the Court held that warrantless arrests made in public places do not violate the Constitution especially if they concern misdemeanors being committed in the presence of police authorities. The basis of the misdemeanor is s 844 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) being violated by the three. This particular provision penalizes simple possession of a controlled substance since cocaine is listed as one under Schedule II of the said Act. Granting that the sniffing session was committed outside of the vehicle owned by Donald, he can nevertheless be charged along with Sam and Thomas for conspiracy to commit simple possession of controlled substance because the three are together. In the case of United States v. Hernandez, the Court held that to prove the presence of conspiracy, it must be shown that there is “(1) an agreement (2) to engage in criminal activity and (3) one or more overt acts in furtherance of conspiracy.” The proof of conspiracy need not show that the co-conspirators engaged in explicit acts to commit conspiracy but “an implicit agreement may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case” (United States v Monroe 552 F. 2d 860, 862). In the case at hand, Donald was in the company of Thomas and Sam, while the two were sniffing in the public park. The law does not penalize sniffing per se but the possession of the controlled substance and the fact that the three are together in a public park while the two were sniffing cocaine, circumstantial evidence would point to a conspiracy. The case of conspiracy against Donald would even be stronger if the three are inside Donald’s car park in the parking lot of the public park while the two are sniffing because Donald owns the car and has therefore control and dominion over it, and by implication everything inside it. The accused must have actual knowledge that a controlled substance like cocaine is in his possession. However, this is not sufficient because the accused must have immediate and exclusive control over the substance. In the case United States v. Caballero 712 F. 2d 126, the Court held that constructive possession may be evidenced by “ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband itself, or dominion or control over the premises or vehicle in which the contraband was concealed.” It would therefore be reasonable for the police authorities to arrest Donald together with his companions Thomas and Sam. As his defense, Donald could invoke the fact that although he was with the group when they bought the cocaine, refused to have anything to do with it and thus declined to sniff it with his friends. In addition, Donald could also state that he had really no control over the persons of his friends specifically the possession of uncontrolled substances. Works Cited Bergman, Paul & Berman-Barrett, Sara J. The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System. Nolo, 2008. Campbell, Andrea. Making Crime Pay: The Writers Guide to Criminal Law, Evidence, and Procedure. Allworth Communications, Inc., 2002. Clore, Duncan L. Financial Institutions. American Bar Association, 1998. Controlled Substances Act. Crimes Against Business: Forgery and Fraud Offenses. http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/293/293lect12.htm McShane, Marilyn & Williams, Frank. Youth Violence and Delinquency. University of South Carolina Press, 2007. People v Ceballos, 526 P. 2d 241, 116 Cal. Rptr. 233 (1974). Schaumberg v. Citizens for Environment 444 US 620 (1980) Smith, Patricia K. The Economics of Anti-Begging Regulations. Apr. 2005, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_2_64/ai_n13729927/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1 United States v. Caballero 712 F. 2d 126 Washington v Chrisman 455 US 1 (1982) United States v. Hernandez 876 F.2d United States v Monroe 552 F. 2d 860, 862 United States v. Watson 423 US 411 (1976). Read More