SECTION 1 - COLQUITT
FALL, 2002
ASSIGNMENTS: This
syllabus informs you of the topics we will cover during the semester as well as provides
you with your reading assignments. You should be able to access the syllabus either by
personal computer or through the Law Library’s computer lab.
Normally, all assignments for this course will be contained in the course syllabus. If any new cases or materials are added, this information will be provided during class and by postings on the website.
All assignments in this handout and in the syllabus refer either to our casebook or to the required materials contained on-line at the course website. For example, T 1-20 is a reference to pages 1 through 20 of the required casebook, BONNIE, COUGHLIN, JEFFRIES & LOW, CRIMINAL LAW (1997). Similarly, T A-11 refers to page 11 of Appendix A of the casebook.
As part of your participation in this course, you should read every assignment before class. Simply look under any “Session” and you will see listed the reading assignment(s) for that session of class. We probably will proceed through the course in the order established by the syllabus. Any changes will be posted on the website and announced in class.
BACKGROUND READING:
Background reading assignments usually will not be discussed in class. They are, however,
important to your understanding of the material that will be discussed. If time permits,
we may cover any difficult subjects contained in the background materials.
OBJECTIVES: At the
beginning of each major topic area, this syllabus states certain objectives. The
objectives are for illustration only. Certainly, they are not all-inclusive. You should
add appropriate objectives as you study the materials for this course.
LINKS: Underlined
listings in blue font are "links." Simply "click" on any link with
your left mouse button and the listed material will appear on your computer screen. You
then have three options: Read the material on-line, save it to disk, or print it.
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
OBJECTIVE: To examine the court systems and the processing of criminal cases.
"THOUGHT STIMULATOR":
"We must recognize that agencies of criminal justice are part of a system, that each jurisdiction is dependent on others, and that all must function effectively or none will." RAMSEY CLARK, CRIME IN AMERICA 131 (1970).
BACKGROUND READING: The
following materials should be read as soon as feasible. They provide valuable basic
information about the criminal law, criminal procedure and the criminal justice system.
Although we will not discuss these materials in class, the information will prove most
helpful to your understanding of the materials we will discuss.
State Felony Case Process (class handout)
The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society
MODEL PENAL CODE § 1.02 - T A-10/ A-11
MODEL PENAL CODE § 1.04 - T A12-A13
OBJECTIVE: To itemize, evaluate, and critique punishment rationales, goals, methods and results.
"THOUGHT STIMULATORS":
"[E]very act of authority of one man over another, for which there is not an absolute necessity, is tyrannical. It is upon this then that the sovereign's right to punish crimes is founded; that is, upon the necessity of defending the public liberty, entrusted to his care, from the usurpation of individuals; and punishments are just in proportion, as the liberty, preserved by the sovereign, is sacred and valuable." CESARE BECCARIA, AN ESSAY ON CRIME AND PUNISHMENTS (1819).
"As of June 30, 1999, the Alabama prison system held 24,211 inmates. By race and gender: 14,935 black males, 7,616 white males, 68 "other" males, 935 black females, 724 white females, and 5 "other" females. THE SENTENCING INSTITUTE, QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT (April-June 1999).
BACKGROUND READING: The
following materials should be read as an introduction the our study of the law governing
punishment. We may not discuss these code sections specifically, but the rules do
introduce you to a proposed statutory punishment scheme.
MODEL PENAL CODE §§ 6.01, 6.03, 6.06, 6.08, 6.12 - T A46 - A51
U.S. CODE tit. 18 § 3553
ALA. R. CRIM. P. 26.8 (incl. commentary)
Kyzer v. State
SESSION 1 - The Purposes of Punishment - Retribution
T 1-11
SESSION 2 - The Purposes of Punishment - Deterrence
T 11-30
OBJECTIVES: 1) To introduce and establish some fundamentals about criminal case analysis; 2) To begin to classify and analyze the elements of a crime generally; 3) To define and study the actus reus element of crimes; 4) To initiate the study of the concept of blameworthiness; 5) To identify and probe the concept of duty; 6) To determine who defines crime.
"THOUGHT STIMULATORS":
"There is no law against a man's intending to commit a murder the day after to-morrow [sic]. The law only deals with conduct." OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW (1881).
"Everyone seems to agree that it would be a perversion of the institution of punishment to convict for thoughts alone." George P. Fletcher, On the Moral Irrelevance of Bodily Movements, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 1443, 1452 (1994).
"[T]he authority of making penal laws can only reside with the legislator, who represents the whole society united by the social compact." CESARE BECCARIA, AN ESSAY ON CRIME AND PUNISHMENTS (1819).
"In times when legislation was scanty, the powers referred to were necessary. That the law in its earlier stages should be developed by judicial decisions from a few vague generalities was natural and inevitable. But a new state of things has come into existence. On the one hand, the courts have done their work; they have developed the law. On the other hand, parliament is regular in its sittings and active in its labours; and if the protection of society requires the enactment of additional penal laws, parliament will soon supply them." III JAMES FITZJAMES STEPHEN, A HISTORY OF THE CRIMINAL LAW OF ENGLAND 360 (1883).
SESSION 3 - The Criminal Act - Previously Defined Conduct
T 31-43
MODEL PENAL CODE § 1.05 - T A-13This reading assignment includes the following principal case:
Rex v. Manley - T 31-33
OPTIONAL READING:
SESSION 4 - The Criminal Act - Vagueness
T 43-57
This reading assignment includes the following principal case:
Kolender v. Lawson - T 43-50
SESSION 5 - The Criminal Act - Vagueness (cont'd)
T 57-64
MODEL PENAL CODE § 1.02(1)(d) - T A-11OPTIONAL READING:
SESSION 6 - The Criminal Act - Conduct
T 64-84
This reading assignment includes the following principal cases:
Keeler v. Superior Court - T 64-73
People v. Sobiek - T 74-77
SESSION 7 - The Criminal Act - Omissions
T 85-98
MODEL PENAL CODE § 2.01(3) - T A-19This reading assignment includes the following principal case:
Commonwealth v. Konz - T 85-91
SESSION 8 - The Criminal Act - Omissions (cont'd)
T 98-105
This reading assignment includes the following principal case:
Barber v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County - T 98-101
SESSION 9 - The Criminal Act - Voluntary Act
T 106-113
MODEL PENAL CODE § 2.01 - T A-19This reading assignment includes the following principal case:
Martin v. State - T 106
OBJECTIVES: 1) To define, examine and distinguish particular mental states; 2) To align particular mental states with the proper elements of crimes; 3) To distinguish crimes not requiring a mens rea element; 4) To identify, define, analyze and critique strict liability crimes; 5) To continue the study of the concept of blameworthiness; 6) To note, evaluate and critique the mistake-of-fact concept; 7) To study the effect of lack-of-capacity on the mens rea requirement.
"THOUGHT STIMULATOR":
"Accountability plays an important role in criminal law. Morality plays an equally important role. If moral culpability is lacking, the actor should not be punished; notions of accountability cannot override this premise. This holds true no matter how repulsive the act or the actor. It is the responsibility and function of criminal law to fashion punishment so as not to exceed an individual's criminal culpability." David S. Rutkowski, A Coercion Defense for the Street Gang Criminal: Plugging the Moral Gap in Existing Law, 10 NOTRE DAME J. OF LAW, ETHICS & PUBLIC POL. 137, 226 (1996).
SESSION 10 - The Criminal Mind - Mens Rea
T 114-124
MODEL PENAL CODE § 2.02 - T A-19 - A-21
MODEL PENAL CODE § 2.05 - T A-22
ALA. CODE § 13A-2-4(a)-(b)
This reading assignment includes the following principal case:
Regina v. Faulkner - T 114-116
SESSION 11 - The Criminal Mind - Mens Rea (cont'd)
T 124-137
This reading assignment includes the following principal case:
Morissette v. United States - T 124-130
SESSION 12 - The Criminal Mind - Mens Rea (cont'd)
T 137-145
SESSION 13 - The Criminal Mind - Mens Rea (cont'd)
T 145-149
SESSION 14 - The Criminal Mind - Ignorance / Mistake
"THOUGHT STIMULATOR":
"It has been thought that to shoot at a block of wood thinking it to be a man is not an attempt to murder, and that to put a hand in an empty pocket, intending to pick it, is not an attempt to commit larceny, although on the latter question there is a difference of opinion." OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW (1881).
T 149-159
MODEL PENAL CODE § 2.04 - T A-21 - A-22
MODEL PENAL CODE § 213.6(1) - T A-68
ALA. CODE § 13A-2-6
McQuirk v. State
This reading assignment includes the following principal case:
State v. Fox - T 149-153
SESSION 15 - The Criminal Mind - Mistakes of Non-Criminal Law
"THOUGHT STIMULATOR":
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. . . . [E]veryone must feel that ignorance of the law could never be admitted as an excuse, even if the fact could be proved by sight and hearing in every case. . . . Public policy sacrifices the individual to the public good. . . . [T]o admit the excuse at all would be to encourage ignorance . . . ."" OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW (1881).
T 159-163
MODEL PENAL CODE § 2.04 - T A-21 - A-22 (review)
MODEL PENAL CODE § 3.09 - T A-35
ALA. CODE § 13A-2-6(b)-(d) (review)
SESSION 16 - The Criminal Mind - Mistakes of Non-Criminal Law (cont'd)
T 163-168
This reading assignment includes the following principal case:
State v. Woods - T 163-164
SESSION 17 - The Criminal Mind - Negligence
T 168-181
This reading assignment includes the following principal case:
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Smith - T 168-173
SESSION 18 - The Criminal Mind - Intoxication
T 181-193
This reading assignment includes the following principal case:
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Majewski - T 181-187
SESSION 19 - The Criminal Mind - Strict Liability
T 193-205
This reading assignment includes the following principal case:
United States v. Freed - T 193-196
OBJECTIVES: 1) To seek to explain why attempts are punished as separate crimes; 2) To analyze why attempts are punished less severely than are completed crimes; 3) To identify and study the mens rea and actus reus elements of attempts; 4) To distinguish preparation from attempts.
"THOUGHT STIMULATOR":
"The law only deals with conduct. An attempt is an overt act." OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW (1881).
SESSION 20 - Attempt - The Required Conduct
T 216-232
MODEL PENAL CODE §§ 5.01 - T A-41 - A-43
MODEL PENAL CODE §§ 5.05 - T A-44 - A-45
MODEL PENAL CODE §§ 222.1 - T A-71 - A-72
ALA. CODE § 13A-4-2
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
United States v. Brown & Rouse - T 220-225
OPTIONAL READING:
ALA. CODE § 13A-8-43
ALA. CODE § 13A-8-40(b)
Ex parte James
SESSION 21 - Attempt - Mens Rea
T 236-248
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
People v. Thomas - T 236-241
SESSION 22 - Attempt - Mens Rea (cont'd)
Review previous assignment on Attempt - Mens Rea
SESSION 23 - Attempt - Impossibility
T 248-262
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
People v. Dlugash - T 248-253
SESSION 24 - Attempt - Abandonment
T 262-267
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
Ross v. Mississippi - T 248-253
OBJECTIVES: 1) To identify, examine and critique the common law concept of principals and accomplices; 2) To compare, distinguish and critique the modern approach to complicity; 3) To review the mens rea requirement and study its application accessorial liability; 4) To identify, examine and critique the general characteristics of conspiracy; 5) To differentiate between the nature of complicity and conspiracy.
"THOUGHT STIMULATOR":
If you share your friend's crime, you make it your own. [American proverb].
SESSION 25 - Complicity
T 565-576
MODEL PENAL CODE § 2.06 - T A-23
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
Rex v. Russell - T 567-570
SESSION 26 - Complicity (cont'd)
T 576-587
The text assignment includes the following principal cases:
United States v. Peoni - T 576-577
Backun v. United States - T 577-579
People v. Durham - T 583-586
SESSION 27 - Complicity (cont'd)
T 587-595
Ex parte G.G.
ALA. CODE § 13A-2-21
ALA. CODE § 13A-2-23
ALA. CODE § 13A-6-2(a)(3)
Besides the cited case, the text assignment includes the following additional principal cases:
Regina v. Cogan & Leak - T 587-588
Regina v. Tyrrell - T 593-594
SESSION 28 - Conspiracy
T 595-613
MODEL PENAL CODE § 5.03 - T A-43 - A-44
The text assignment includes the following principal cases
People v. Burleson - T 597-601
OPTIONAL READING:
Chisler v. State
SESSION 29 - Conspiracy (cont'd)
T 613-632
The text assignment includes the following principal cases:
People v. Lauria - T 613-619
Braverman v. United States - T 613-619
SESSION 30 - Homicide
T 657-664
MODEL PENAL CODE §§ 210.0-210.5 - T A-59 - A-60
Jury Instruction (Murder in first and second degrees)
ALA. CODE tit. 14 §§ 314, 317, 318
SESSION 31 - Homicide - Capital
T 664-680
The Death Penalty Laws of Alabama
ALA. CODE § 13A-5-40
ALA. CODE § 13A-6-2(a)The text assignment includes the following principal case:
Godfrey v. Georgia - T 680-692
SESSION 32 - Homicide - Capital (cont'd)
T 703-731
The text assignment includes the following principal cases:
State v. Neelley - T 705-712
Neelley v. State - T 712-715
SESSION 33 - Homicide - Capital (cont'd)
Review previous assignment on Homicide - Capital
SESSION 34 - Homicide - Intentional
T 774-792
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
Freddo v. State - T 774-776
SESSION 35 - Homicide -Intentional (cont'd)
T 792-801
Jury Instruction (Manslaughter in first and second degrees)
ALA. CODE tit. 14 §§ 320, 322OPTIONAL READING: Barnett v. State (revisit)
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
People v. Casassa - T 484-487
SESSION 36 - Homicide - Unintentional
T 801-819
The text assignment includes the following principal cases:
Essex v. Commonwealth - T 801-808
People v. Register - T 811-817
SESSION 37 - Homicide - Causation
OBJECTIVES: 1) To identify and study causation issues such as foreseeability and proximate cause; 2) To determine why criminal liability is limited by a causation element; 3)To determine which crimes, if any, do not include a causation element.
T 819-828
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
People v. Kibbe - T 819-822
SESSION 38 - Homicide - Felony Murder
T 828-850
The text assignment includes the following principal cases:
State v. Goodseal - T 834-842
State v. Underwood - T 842-845
OBJECTIVES: 1) To apply our acquired knowledge of criminal law analysis to sex crimes, with particular focus on the crime of rape; 2) To identify, define, analyze, and distinguish specific sex offenses; 3)To compare and distinguish common law and statutory crimes related to rape and sex crimes; 4) To critique the crimes as appropriate.
"THOUGHT STIMULATORS":
"Stereotypically, rape is perceived as an infrequent crime committed by a sex-starved, weapon-wielding stranger, often black, on a provocatively dressed woman, often white, in a back alley." Lynn Hecht Schafran, Writing and Reading About Rape: A Primer, 66 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 979, 981 (1993).
"The message of the law to men, and to women, should be made clear. Simple rape is real rape." SUSAN ESTRICH, REAL RAPE 104 (1987).
SESSION 39 - Sexual Offenses - Rape
T 268-288
MODEL PENAL CODE §§ 213.1 - T A-66
McQuirk v. State (revisit)
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
State v. Rusk - T 271-280
SESSION 40 - Sexual Offenses - Rape (cont'd)
T 288-311
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
State v. Smith - T 630-634
SESSION 41 - Sexual Offenses - Rape (cont'd)
T 311-323
MODEL PENAL CODE §§ 213.6(1) - T A-68
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
Garnett v. State - T 312-318
OBJECTIVES: 1) To apply our acquired knowledge of criminal law analysis to specific offenses related to the taking of property; 2) To identify, define, analyze, and distinguish specific crimes in the theft family; 3) To compare and distinguish common law and statutory crimes related to theft; 4) To critique the crimes. as appropriate.
"THOUGHT STIMULATORS":
"Robbery was the only crime in which women were more likely to be victimized by strangers rather than intimates, other family members, or acquaintances." Ronet Bachman, U. S. Dep't of Justice, Violence Against Women 7 (Victimization Survey Report -1994).
According to data collected from the Alabama Department of Corrections from 1992 through 1996, the top ten offenses committed by the inmates entering prison in Alabama were [rankings in parentheses]: Drug offenses (1, 3, 9), theft II and I (2, 6, respectively), burglary III(4), robbery I (7), murder (8) and possession of a forged instrument II (10). Violation of the Youthful Offender Act was listed as number 5. The underlying offense in a YO case is unavailable and may include any felony offense. Other "top 20" crimes included: Receiving stolen property II (11), robbery II (15), burglary of vehicle (17), receiving stolen property I (18), and forgery (20). Thus, of the "top 20" crimes resulting in incarceration, eleven were "property" crimes." And two non-descriptive categories certainly contain more property crimes. The rankings would be higher were not property crimes classified. For example, by merging all property (theft-type) crimes, their numbers swell to four times the number 1 ranked crime, over 1.6 times the number 2 family of crimes, drug offenses, and 12 times that of murder, over 26 times that of rape. Source: The Sentencing Institute, DOC Commitments: January 1, 1992 - December 31, 1996 (table - 1997).
SESSION 42 - Theft - Robbery
State v. Cunningham
[389 S.E.2d 286 (N.C. App. 1986)]
State v. Garza Rodriguez [791 P.2d 633 (Ariz. 1990)]
James v. State [405 So. 2d 71 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981)]
SESSION 43 - Trespass - Burglary
Johnson v. State
[611 So. 2d 457 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)]
Soto v. State [782 S.W.2d 17 (Tex. App. 1989)]
OBJECTIVES: 1) To identify, define, analyze, and distinguish specific defenses; 2) To distinguish between justification and excuse; 3) To critique some defenses; 4) To revisit the concept of blameworthiness.
"THOUGHT STIMULATORS":
"Although the law of self-defense has evolved over some nine centuries, its basic parameters were established very early and have changed remarkably little." CYNTHIA K. GILLESPIE, JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE 31 (1989).
"There is a readiness to see women as less culpable than men for their acts, or at least, to see women's acts as more likely to have arisen from experiences of victimization." KATHLEEN DALY, GENDER, CRIME, AND PUNISHMENT 133 (1994).
"Men who kill their wives often receive lenient sentences. Women who kill their male abusers, however, rarely receive any leniency from the courts. Their claims of self-defense are refused, they are silenced in the court system, and they are sentenced to lengthy prison sentences." Shelley A. Bannister, Battered Women Who Kill Their Abusers: Their Courtroom Battles, in ROSLYN MURASKIN & TED ALLEMAN, IT'S A CRIME - WOMEN AND JUSTICE 316 (1993).
"The prosecution of Bernard Goetz will remain with us as a focal point of our best efforts to find a just solution to the problem of defensive response to perceived dangers on the streets. The legal system succeeded in directing the public's energies away from retaliatory actionand into legal argument. But the issues are too deep, the fears too great, to settle the argument with a verdict and a sentence. As long as we fear mugging on the subway, we will be engaged by the burdens of pondering when self-defense should be a crime." GEORGE P. FLETCHER, A CRIME OF SELF DEFENSE (1988).
SESSION 44 - Justification
T 324-340
MODEL PENAL CODE § 3.04 - T A-28 - A-29
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
Commonwealth v. Markum - T 325-331
SESSION 45 - Justification - Defense Against Aggression
T 340-360
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
People v. Goetz - T 340-346
SESSION 46 - Justification - Defense Against Aggression (cont'd)
T 360-386
The text assignment includes the following principal cases:
State v. Kelly - T 360-369
People v. Young - T 378=385
People v. Young - T 385
SESSION 47 - Justification - Public Authority
T 386-399
The text assignment includes the following principal cases:
United States v. Ehrlichman - T 386-390
United States v. Barker - T 393-398
OPTIONAL READING: [Even Higher Authority]
United States v. Elder
Hill v. State
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
SESSION 48 - Excuses
"THOUGHT STIMULATORS":
"Excuses are based on shifting assessments of the degrees of firmness and strength that are required of the average citizen." Michael Corrado, Is There an Act Requirement in the Criminal Law?, 142 U. PA. L. REV. 1529, 1560-61 (1994).
T 399-418
MODEL PENAL CODE § 2.09 - T A-25 - A-26The text assignment includes the following principal case:
United States v. Willis - T 401-406
OPTIONAL READING: [Other Excuses]
United States v. Hearst
Zamora v. State
Zamora v. Duggar
Jacobson v. United States
Smith v. State
ALA. CODE § 13A-3-31 and Commentary
OBJECTIVES: 1) To acquaint ourselves with the defense of insanity; 2) To identify, define, analyze, compare and distinguish various versions of the defense of insanity; 3) To review existing objections to the insanity defense; 4) To study and discuss possible alternatives to the defense.
"THOUGHT STIMULATORS":
"You may well come to the view that neither lawyers nor doctors offer much help in answering the question of why there should be a defense of insanity--and if you have, you are right. They do not have much to give." Norval Morris, National Institute of Justice, Crime File Study Guide, Insanity Defense 1 (NCJ 97226, undated).
"It should not be assumed that shifting the burden [of proof] one way or the other significantly alters the outcomes of trials involving the insanity defense. The defense itself is rare, its success rate spotty." DANIEL N. ROBINSON, WILD BEASTS AND IDLE HUMORS 189(1988).
SESSION 49 - Insanity
T 445-456
MODEL PENAL CODE §§ 4.01-4.03 - T A-36 - A-37
ALA. CODE § 13A-3-1
SESSION 50 - Insanity (cont'd)
SESSION 51 - Insanity (cont'd)
Review previously assigned materials - Insanity
SESSION 52 - Insanity and Intoxication
T 502-514
MODEL PENAL CODE § 2.08 - T A-25
ALA. CODE § 13A-3-2
United States v. Knott
Lister v. StateThe text assignment includes the following principal case:
People v. Kelley - T 502-506
SESSION 53 - Insanity (cont'd)
T 514-538
The text assignment includes the following principal case:
Foucha v. Louisiana - T 519-530
SESSION 54 - Insanity (cont'd)
T 538-556
The text assignment includes the following principal cases:
Regina v. Stephenson - T 540-542
United States v. Bright - T 550-552
SESSION 55 - Insanity (cont'd)
T 556-564
OBJECTIVES: 1) To acquaint ourselves with the burdens of proof confronted in criminal litigation; 2) To review constitutional provisions that impact on the burdens of proof.
SESSION 56 - Proof - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
T 863-887
ALA. PATTERN JURY IINSTRUCTION - CRIM. § 13A-3-1
The text assignment includes the following principal cases:
Mullaney v. Wilbur - T 864-870
Patterson v. New York - T 870-880
SESSION 57 - Proof - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (cont'd)
T 887-901
The text assignment includes the following principal cases:
Martin v. Ohio - T 887-891
Sandstrom v. Montana - T 892-897
SESSION 58 - Course Summary and Class Exercise
State v. Merchant
(practice exam question)
| MAIN | COURSE INFO | SYLLABUS | CASES | STATUTES | NEWS | MISC. | EXAM INFO | HELP |
Return to Top
of Document
E-Mail to Judge Colquitt