Criminal Law Criminal Statutes Pgs.

92-95
Commonwealth v. Mochan Superior Court of Pennsylvania 110 A.2d 788 Facts: , Mocahn, made several indecent phone calls to Louis Zivkovich and the members of her family. During these phone calls, the suggested that Louise Zivkovich was an immoral woman and the made several comments to that effect. also orally solicited sex from Louise, which would have been an act of adultery. Furthermore, the made suggestions regarding the act of sodomy. Issue: Whether charging Mochan with a criminal offense that isnt expressly defined by statute, but is allowed because the jurisdiction retains common law crimes, violates the legality principle? Procedural History: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania brought an action against Mochan for intending to debauch and corrupt, and further devising and intending to harass, embarrass, and vilify the victim. Mochan was charged on both counts. appealed claiming that his acts were not expressly defined by statute to be criminal and that his acts would not constitute a misdemeanor at common law. Holding: The legality principle prohibits retroactive criminal lawmaking and as interpreted by SCOTUS, requires that no criminal penalty be imposed without fair notice that the conduct I forbidden. Goals of the legality principle include statutes that are understandable to reasonable law-abiding citizens, criminal statutes should not delegate basic policy matters to policeman, judges, and juries on a subjective basis and ambiguous statutes should be biased in favor of the accused. Reasoning: A section of the Pennsylvania Penal Code provides that every offense punishable by either the statutes or common law of this Commonwealth and not specifically provided for by this Act shall continue to be a offense punishable as a crime. In short, Pennsylvania has followed the majority decision to allow criminal punishment for common law crimes. The fact that no precedent exists on this matter is of little trouble to the court. However, the controlling principle from Commonwealth v. Miller states that The common law is sufficiently broad to punish as a misdemeanor, although there may be no exact precedent, any act which directly injures or tends to injure the public to such an extent as to require the state to interfere and punish the wrongdoer, as in the case of acts which injuriously affect public morality, or obstruct, or pervert public justice, or the administration of government. So basically, judicial interpretation is taking the place of the legislative function by declaring certain acts to be criminal and punishing them, as such. Dissent: Believes that the court has overstepped its judicial boundaries by determining that Mochans acts were injurious to the public. The legislature is the body that is charged with making such determinations via criminal statutes. There is no reason for the legislature to adopt criminal statutes when the judiciary is going apply the principles to conduct the court finds to be injurious to the public. Class Discussion 1. Case Discussion a. Legality Principle i. Relates to the core necessity for criminal prohibitions to be adequately embodied in previously articulated law 1. We cant make it up as we go along, nor do we want to ii. Several doctrinal principles that flow from the legality principle 1. Prohibition on retroactive criminal law b. Prosecution looking to common law as a basis to charge the c. Failure i. In part because of the source of law 1. Common law 2. Lack of legislative definition ii. Lacks fair notice

Criminal Law Criminal Statutes Pgs. 92-95

Need to ensure that we all have sufficient notice of prohibited conduct to permit us to conform our conduct or the dictates of the law 2. Failure to provide such adequate notice runs afoul of legality principle 3. Subject to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement 4. Not the same as retroactive prohibition but it is similar Behavior that society has deemed to be sufficiently dangerous or inappropriate and has established sanctions to accompany them a. Typically involve moral condemnation or blame (What sets criminal law apart) i. Violations ii. Probation iii. Fines iv. Death penalty b. Focus is on the punishment and determent of wrongful conduct c. Several doctrinal issues i. Intent 1. Mens Rea ii. Causation 1. Analogous to causation in fact and proximate cause in civil law Dimensions a. Prosecution; Criminal i. Prosecution has the burden of establishing each element of the crime ii. Beyond a reasonable doubt 1. Higher burden of proof 2. Preponderance of evidence used in civil cases iii. No directed verdict or summary judgments in criminal law b. State (Society) i. Seeking to vindicate the criminal wrongs the perpetrator did ii. Serves as a party c. Principle of Legality i. Requirement of previously defined criminal conduct ii. Lenity doctrine iii. Vagueness iv. Definiteness Difficulties a. Doctrinal common law rules i. Anglo-American tradition ii. Not the law in any particular jurisdiction b. Focus to some degree on statutory interpretation i. Modern criminal law is nearly exclusively statutory ii. Not exactly the rules in any particular jurisdiction 1. State legislatures will vary in their criminal statutes iii. Model Penal Code 1. Drafted by the ALI (Restatements) 2. Designed to address perceived problems in the criminal codes 3. Hopefully states will adopt portions of the MPC into their statutes 4. Significant influence on state criminal code 5. Really isnt the law in any particular jurisdiction a. Secondary authority only c. Deliberate deviations from the Common Law i. ALI sought to rectify common law flaws ii. Comparing and contrasting between MPC and common law 1. Underlying policy concerns, philosophy, etc. 1.

2.

3.

4.