Criminal Law Class Notes August 22, 2013 Principle of Legality Keeler v.

Superior Court (filing an extraordinary writasking appellate court to direct the trial court to do something) writ of prohibition : asking the appellate court to prohibit the trial court from allowing this case to go forward on the theory that he hasn't been charged with viable crime due to principle of legality shouldnt have to defend myself against an action that isnt a crime (could stigmatize/time/ect) motion to dismiss : fail to properly allege a crime then files writ of prohibition what process do they believe he is entitled to trying to kill what he knew to be alive (baby) if he didnt think it was a viable human being would have stomped stomach what process does this court believe that the constitution owes the defendant ? Saying he was denied something that the constitution the process he's do is who gets to say what is a crime (the legislature) thats the principle of legality constitution requires that a crime exist before a person can be accused of a crime no punishment without crime --cannot be punished for someone in a state that is not a crime (ex-post facto clause of the constitution) have to determine the plain intent of the meaning human being as defined by legislature statutory interpretation // not allowed to adopt an interpretation that changes the law from the meaning it was given at the time of adoption first way you interpret the statue: see if you can resolve by looking at plain text, assume that because the definition of human being hasnt been changed since it was first adopted in the 1800s that the legislature today still wants us to use the same definition, also look at legislature history that could indicate what that word meant original common law rule: cannot murder a fetus homicide required the victim to be born alive/ not born alive then youre not a human being absent contrary evidence if still not sure as to definitionrequired to apply doctrine of lenity debate you always decide in favor the defendant/consistent with the presumption of evidence after case they amended the law legality: law has to be adequately defined due notice/ dissuade arbitrary enforcement Commonwealth v. Mochan Facts: D was being obscene on the phone to P charged for violation of a section 101 of PA penal code (a statue) who makes a statue? legislaturewhy are judges arguing over common law dissenting judge says this isnt a crime not illegal. Cannot be convicted of something that is not a crime convicted of violating the statue...but the statue did not say that what he did was a violation the statue just said the penal code would incorporate the common law catch all provision (penal code) anything else that you think is illegal is illegal because it is not an enumerated crime (stated/articulated) in order to charge with this crime have to go back to common law could have we prosecuted under common law? If yes, then we can prosecute him

now. What did the common law prohibit that has been incorporated whatever openly outrages decency and is injurious to public moral is a misdemeanor at common law. Any act is indictable at common law which from its nature scandalously affects the morals or health of the community why does the dissenting judge have a problem? It is too general. Who is going to ultimately decide if I do something that is an outrage and injures the public? First the cop is prosecutor agrees judge agrees whole time the rest of us didnt agree it is up to the legislature to determine what injures the public and what crimes should be punished. Too subjective/ not define provision that allows you to make up what is a crime is offensive to concept of legality encourages arbitrary and potentially discriminatory enforcement of the law doesn't give fair notice of what is or is not prescribed by the law although was a statue it didnt define the crime majority uphold the conviction : whats against the law is an outrage to public morality if all he did was ask her to engage in adulatory it wouldnt be a crime why? Because the judges decided arbitrarily that it wouldnt be a crime dissenting: so arbitrary. Don't want judges making law, want the peoplethats what gives us confidence that what is being punished is, the view of society, is harmful to society City of Chicago v. Morales if you have to wait for a cop to tell you that what youre doing is illegal before you know its illegal then you dont have due notice due process means that the law has to be sufficiently clear/precise to: put us on minimally adequate notice of whats criminal has to be sufficiently definite to deprive those entrusted with the enforcement of the law to not arbitrarily apply law unconstitutional vague violates due process peonage loitering laws were used to justify the arbitrary decision to enslave african americans?