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 (10th). Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth. ISBN
9780495807490 9780495812319
Page
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
1
Beck, G. (2012). Cowards: What Politicians, Radicals, and the Media Refuse to Say.
New York, N.Y.: Mercury Radio Arts. ISBN 9781451693478
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.
Page
Court Decision: Affirmed, Reversed, or Reversed and Remanded
2
Court: Name of court (i.e., Minnesota Court of Appeals, U.S. Supreme Court)
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
Page
(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
3
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
4
Page
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
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
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,
5
10 points each x 2 = 20 (20%)
40 points (40%)
40 points (40%)___________
100 points (100%)
Page
Course Evaluation:
Case Briefs
Midterm Exam
Final Exam
Total
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% = A60-64% = C85-89% = B+
55-59% = D
80-84% = B
50-54% = D75-79% = B<50% = F
70-74% = C+
Page
6
COURSE SCHEDULE FOLLOWS
September 2012
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
4
Fri
Sat
5
6
7
8
12
13
14
15
20
21
22
27
28
29
Introduction to
the class
Review of
Syllabus
9
10
11
Chapter 1 –
Criminal Law
and Criminal
Punishment
16
23
Chapter 1 –
Criminal Law and
Criminal
Punishment
17
18
19
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
24
Chapter 3 – The
General Principles of
Criminal Liability;
Actus Reus
CASE BRIEF #1 DUE
25
26
Chapter 3 – The
General
Principles of
Criminal
Liability; Actus
Reus
Page
7
30
October 2012
Sun
Mon
Tue
1
Wed
2
Chapter 4 – The
General
Principles of
Criminal
Liability; Mens
Rea,
Concurrence,
Causation, and
Ignorance &
Mistake
7
Fri
Sat
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
17
18
19
20
24
25
26
27
Chapter 4 – The
General
Principles of
Criminal
Liability; Mens
Rea,
Concurrence,
Causation, and
Ignorance &
Mistake
8
FALL BREAK
NO CLASS
14
Thu
9
FALL
BREAK
NO
CLASS
15
FALL BREAK
NO CLASS
16
Chapter 5 – Defenses
to Criminal Liability;
Justifications
Catch-up Review
CASE BRIEF #2 DUE
22
23
Chapter 6 –
Defenses to
Criminal
Liability; Excuse
28
29
Chapter 7 –
Parties to a Crime
and Vicarious
Liability
30
31
Chapter 7 –
Parties to a Crime
and Vicarious
Liability
8
Midterm
Page
21
November 2012
Sun
Mon
Tue
4
5
Wed
12
Sat
2
3
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
23
24
Chapter 8 –
Inchoate Crimes
13
Chapter 9 –
Crimes against
Persons I;
Murder &
Manslaughter
18
Fri
1
6
Chapter 8 –
Inchoate Crimes
11
Thu
Chapter 10 – Crimes
against Persons II;
Criminal Sexual
Conduct, Bodily Injury,
and Personal Restraint
Chapter 10 - Beck
19
20
Chapter 10 – Crimes
against Persons II;
Criminal Sexual
Conduct, Bodily Injury,
and Personal Restraint
21
THANKSGIVING
BREAK
22
BREAK
THANKSGIVING
BREAK
Chapter 10 - Beck
Chapter 11 –
Crimes Against
Property
27
28
29
30
Chapter 12 – Crimes
Against Public Order
Chapter 4 – Beck –
Economic Terrorism:
Financial Weapons of
Mass Destruction
9
26
Page
25
December 2012
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
12
13
14
15
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
Review and
catch-up
16
Review and
catch-up
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
Page
23
10
FINAL EXAM
3 – 5 pm
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 7689613. 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.
Page
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
11
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.
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
Page
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
12
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.
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.
Page
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
13
Concurrences: N/A (not applicable OR none given)
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.
Page
14
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.