Helens Penal Law

Front 1

sources of Law: Where does the law come from?

Back 1

1. constitutions
2. Statutory law
3. Case Law
4. Administrative law

Front 2

state constitution

Back 2

may provide greater protections that the federal constitution.

Front 3

Bill of Rights

Back 3

A constitutional after thought, first ten amendements

Front 4

purpose of the constitution?

Back 4

to provide structure for government. to set up government. set up the rights of individuals, powers/limits of the governments power

Front 5

statutes

Back 5

laws enacted by a legislative body

Front 6

Federal legislative body

Back 6

Congress

Front 7

State legislative bodys

Back 7

NYS legislature (albany), county legistlature, city legistlature, town legislature

Front 8

Case law

Back 8

written judicial decisions. Judges can only write dicsisions when there is a case in front of them. "Interpretation and application of the law"

Front 9

Administrative/Regulatory law

Back 9

IRS. administrative agency created by the US congress. Enacts regulations to interpret/ app.y laws.

Front 10

How a judge makes a decision

Back 10

1. look for definitions in the statute
2. look for prior case decisions
3. look for "legislative history" of the statute. (paper trail)
4. apply common sense (last resort)

Front 11

where do you find definitions

Back 11

general definition sections §10.00.
Begining of the Article where the offense appears. has a defintion section

Front 12

What if its's a Case of first impression

Back 12

look for what the legislature inteded the term to mean. "legislative intent"

Front 13

how are ambiguities resolved?

Back 13

they are resolved in favor of the defendant.

Front 14

Ex post facto

Back 14

after a person has committed an offense you cant change the law.

Front 15

elements

Back 15

basic building blocks of criminal offenses

Front 16

what are the 4 elements

Back 16

1. volentary act
2. culpable mental state
3. result
4. other circumstances
**DA must rove EACH element required.

Front 17

Voluntary Act

Back 17

includes "volunatrily induced involuntary act".

Front 18

Omissions

Back 18

failure to do something when you have a legal duty to do it. (included in voluntary acts)

Front 19

culpable mental state

Back 19

The state of mind of the person comitting the crime. there are 4 culpable mental states)1. Intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and with criminal negligence

Front 20

Intentionally

Back 20

culpable mental state. Conscious objective to do something.

Front 21

knowingly

Back 21

the culpable mental state of acting with awareness

Front 22

Recklessly

Back 22

culpable mental state. defendant creates risk of harm. defendant si aware of rsik and conciously disregards it. risk must be substancial and unjustifyable.
disreguard of risk was a gross deviation form the standard of care that a normal person would give.

Front 23

criminal negligence

Back 23

culpable mental state. Fails to perceive the risk created by defendats conduct. the risk is substatial and unjustifyable, gross deviation from the normal standard of care.

Front 24

strict liability offenses

Back 24

no culpable mental state required.

Front 25

how to determine strict liability offenses:

Back 25

look for culpable mental state word s in the statute.
if there is no culpable mental state then read one in, if necessary. Its only a strict liability offenses if the legislature specifically says.

Front 26

legislation

Back 26

laws passed by an elected group of representatives. they tend to be much more detailed and complex than constitutions.

Front 27

ordinances

Back 27

legislatiion passed at the local level of government

Front 28

binding court decisions

Back 28

court decisions that come from a higher authority and lower courts are forced to follow.

Front 29

regulatory/administrative law

Back 29

legislative body gives authority to another government agency. usually created by an act of a legislative body.

Front 30

jobs of the court

Back 30

to interpret and apply the laws which have already been created though specific cases brought before it.

Front 31

Penal law

Back 31

part of the NY statutes that defines which conduct is criminal, under what circumstances, and sets up penaltys for those convicted of criminal conduct.

Front 32

parts of penal law

Back 32

broad catagorys of subject matter. part 1- general provisions. part 2- sentances, part 3- specfici offnese, part 4- administrative provisions

Front 33

titles of the penal law

Back 33

parts are subdivided into these. ____ 1 general purposes, rules of construction and definitions C defenses

Front 34

sections

Back 34

articles are further divided into these.

Front 35

subdivisions

Back 35

articles are further divided into these where needed.

Front 36

citing the Penal law

Back 36

cite only section and subdivisoin.

Front 37

voluntary act

Back 37

required for every criminal offense; this is the minimum requirement for impsing criminal liability.

Front 38

culpable mental state

Back 38

the state of mind of the actor at the time of the offense. most, but not all, require at leasxt one of these, some offenses require more than one.

Front 39

result

Back 39

some, but not all offenses require that a particular ***** oc ur from the actors conduct. the connection between the acotrs conduct and the resulting harm is called causation.

Front 40

other circumstances

Back 40

may offenses require that some other circumstances exsist.

Front 41

strict liability offenses

Back 41

an offense for which no culpable mental state is required. there are few because they conflict with our concept of lameorthiness as the basis for criminal liability.

Front 42

causation

Back 42

the connection between a prohibited act and the resulting harm. It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants conduct caused the required result.

Front 43

People v. Erby

Back 43

convicted of criminally negligent homicide. Erby punched george rush in the face in park after he imagined an insult from rush's girlfriend. erby punched him in the face and he fell hitting his head on the concrete. after sitting in a daze for 1/2 hr rush staggered home, the next morning he was found dead. medical examiner testifyed that the death occured from a fractured skull, cerebral contusins, epidural, subdural and subarchnoid hemmorhage, consistant w/ someone hitting their head on the sidewalk. *causation established. a person is criminally negligent when he fails to percieve a substancial and unjustifyable risk, that is a gross deviation from a resonable persons standard of care. the court of appeals reversed conviction and dismissed indictment b/c a it did not deviate from the standard of care that a reasonable person would give.

Front 44

people v. Heinsohn.

Back 44

appellate division decision. defendant convicted of manslaughter 2nd. defendant was driving an unregistered vechile at 14mph over the speed limit. after tailgating a van he pulled out into oncoming traffic in attempt to pass the van. . the defendant drove onto a safety island at the next intersection where he struck 2 pedestrians on the island. defendant testifyed that he was generally familiar with the area. did the defendant create a substancial and unjustifyable risk of which he was aware? the jury decided yes.

Front 45

People v. Boutin

Back 45

defendant convicted of criminally negligenct homicide when he failed to see a cehicle wiht which he collided and killed a cop and another person. It was dark, overcast, rainy, foggy, the roads were slushy and wet. defendant colliede with a police car killing 2. the cars lights were flashing but def. didnt see them. da presented witness who had seen the flashing lights, but many of them testifyed that they thought they were coming from the shoulder. the car was 1/2 in 1/2 out of the shoulder. and presented a witness who testifyed about the speed the defendant was traveling at, but there were inconsistancies with his trial and grand jury testimonys. defendants passenger testifyed that he did brake and didnt see the car. jury kept saying that they couldnt reach a verdict, but they did eventually. defendent is not blameworthy so it was overturned

Front 46

People v. Kibbe

Back 46

defendants convicted of murder, robbery2, and grand larceny3. Defendant was drinking in a bar in Rochester w/ George Stafford. bartender said stafford was drunk and flashing $100 bills. Stafford asked if someone would drive him to Canadaguia NY, the defendants agreed to drive himt there in his car. they went to another bar and didnt get served then stopped at one more for a couple more drinks before they left. Krall drove car, Kibbe demanded that Stafford trun over any moeny he had, he made his take off his shoes and pants to make sure he had no more money then made him get out of the car. . Kibbe put staffrds shoes and jacket on the shoulder of the highway, his eyeglasses were in the car still. temp was near 0. a college student michael blake hit Stafford, said he didnt see him b/c there was no lights and he was sitting in the road. died of head injurys. did people establish that the defendants act caused the death of stafford? yes, the harm should have been forseen as being reasonably related to the acts of the accused. it is not ncessary that the ulitmate harm be intenede by the actor.

Front 47

causation

Back 47

legal connection between defendants conduct and the required result. must be proved by da beyond a reasonable doubt. medical examiner must testify if they died.

Front 48

motion to dismiss

Back 48

allways asked for after da finishes presenting his evidence. trial order dissmissal

Front 49

issue of people v. kibbe

Back 49

was the result a forseagle consequence of the defendants conduct?. blame assesment.