Criminal Law - 2021 Outline - Part 6

Notes:

• There is also a combo option: Judge decides as matter of law if entrapment (with obj) standard, then if he says no, it goes to jury to decide (with sub. standard)
• Inducement = merely “offering an opportunity” not sufficient; must be repeated offerings, money, sexy, using pity, force, threat
• In some states, (AZ) you must admit to crime to use entrapment (Uncons. Per Marcus)
• There are cases where entrapment so bad, it violates due process (doesn’t matter what their pre-dispo was) : Sup Ct never heard one, only a dozen nationwide

Cases:

• Sherman v. United States - Scotus 1958
  • Narcotic addict persuaded to sell to another he met at clinic; other was an informant; got ∆ back on drugs as well
  • Rule: entrapment when criminal conduct is creation of law enforcement and ∆ would not have otherwise done the act
  • Entrapment here absolutely
  • Concurring opinions: argue for objective test (but agree in result)
• United States v. Russell - SCOTUS 1973
  • Manufacturing speed; undercover provided him w/ nec ingredient one of the times; ∆ plead entrapment
  • Rule: only when gov’t deception implants the criminal design= entrapment
  • Here, not entrapment: he did it before, and did it after
  • Dissent: by supplying ingredient, gov’t became party to crime (this is BAD)
  • Other dissent: focus on objective rule
• Jacobson v. United States - SCOTUS 1992
  • Last time SCOTUS has heard case on entrapment
  • Rule: accused must be predisposed to commit crime; state didn’t prove that here

Notes:

• ⅓ ⅓ ⅓ split on evidence of intoxication (admitted or not)
  • Some say admitted only if necessary
  • Others say never
  • Some say evidence in some cases
• Forget ab general/specific intent
• States are split about intoxication: prevailing view is there should be restrictions, but it is a mixed bag

Cases:

• Heideman v. United States - DC Cir. 1958
  • ∆ and friend rob and assault cab driver; claims intox
  • Court rules it should have been admitted to jury (wrong) bc reasonable person could question if he had the intent necessary
  • Dissent: Burger says it shouldn’t have (right!) but its for wrong reasons
• State v. Stasio - NJ 1979
  • Says purpose and knowledge can be negated by voluntary intoxication, but recklessness and negligence cannot (bc they don’t need specific intent)
  • Refer to it as a defense, which it isn’t, but whatever

Notes:

• Very serious circumstances compared to those sentenced normally
• Only ¼ of the 1% of defenses raised are successful
• Comes up at three times
  • Competency to stand trial - very low standard (do they have general idea of what is going on?)
  • Insanity at time of crime- what we focus on
  • Death penalty
• Almost none go free
• Deals with culpability: belief is if insane= diminished culpability

Procedure:

• Trial is bifurcated proceeding
  • 1st: Did they do it
  • 2nd: are they insane
• In some states, they are automatically transferred to state facility
• Others, it is determined by a judge, prosecutor, family members
• If in facility- no sentence cap: just until lo longer threat to society

M’Naghten’s Case:

• Rule: Did the accused, at the time, know the difference between right and wrong
• Was moved away from until Reagan’s attempted assassination
• Still leading majority rule (30 states + Feds)
• Criticism
  • All or nothing
  • Focus is on cognition (right and wrong) and not volition

Irresistible Impulse Test:

• In response to criticism: creation of this test
• Released from liability if they couldnt’ control themselves

MPC - tried to fix this:

• “Substantial capacity” over all or nothing (M’Naughten) test
• Focus on volition + Cognition

Insanity Defense Reform Act:

1. Threw out MPC definition
2. Burden of proof goes to ∆, clear and convincing evidence
3. And Experts cannot testify as to the issue of ∆’s insanity
4. Back to M’Naughten

Insanity as a Failure of Proof?

• Can be FoP: ∆ doesn’t want to raise the issue of insanity as a defense, but says that diminished capacity means gov’t can’t prove intent
  • In some states, allowed: it it works, they walk
  • If not, they go to regular jail (big issue)
• Other states: if you are raising the issue: needs to be Insanity Defense: they can be found NG, but they will still be put away.

Experts

1. First must establish credentials
2. What can that expert testify to: What is X mental disorder; Was this person suffering delusions; they can educate jury about condition
3. They cannot: diagnose person (depending on judge); say that that person was unable to decide right/wrong (jury issue)

Burden of Proof: Usually on ∆ to prove insanity (by preponderance or clear and convincing