Criminal Law – The Basics
Posted by abmishra on June 17, 2008
Criminal Laws and Their Sources
When a society and its government decide that certain conduct is dangerous to citizens, or damaging to the society as a whole, such conduct is labeled a “crime” and is made punishable by sanctions such as fines and imprisonment. Most crimes are identified in statutes that have been enacted by federal, state, and local government legislatures, in response to issues that affect the jurisdiction. For example, a city may determine that it is a crime to be drunk in public, while the federal government decides bank robbery is a federal crime, since most banks are federally insured. Criminal statutes describe the type of conduct that has been deemed a crime, the mindset or intent required, and in some instances, the proper punishment. For example, the following “Burglary” statutes are from the California Penal Code:
Section 459. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, [etc.]…with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.
Section 461. Burglary is punishable as follows:
1. Burglary in the first degree: by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years.
2. Burglary in the second degree: by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison.
People who are found to have violated a criminal law — whether through their own admission by a “guilty” plea, or as a result of a jury trial — can be punished through imposition of fines, imprisonment, probation, and community service, among other penalties.
**************************************
continued…
The Criminal Law System: Players and Procedure
The criminal law “system” encompasses the entire criminal process itself — from investigation and arrest, to conviction and sentencing — and the people who play a role in that process: the accused, police officers, prosecuting attorneys, bail bondsmen, criminal defense attorneys, judges, witnesses, probation officers, and corrections officers.
At all stages of the criminal process, a person suspected of or charged with a crime is entitled to certain fundamental rights that derive from the U.S. Constitution and key court decisions. These include the right to an attorney and the right to a speedy jury trial. These constitutional rights provide a balance between the government’s interest in ensuring that criminal behavior is identified and punished, and the fundamental need to preserve and promote the individual freedoms that characterize a democratic society.
The Outcome: How Might a Criminal Case End?
The outcome of any criminal case depends upon the crime charged, the strength of the evidence, the legal validity of law enforcement and courtroom procedure, and the goals and strategy of the government and defense. When all is said and done, there may be no legal consequence for a person charged with a crime, because the charges are dismissed, or a full-fledged jury trial might result in a criminal conviction.
Some potential outcomes of a criminal case are:
* A criminal investigation ends with no arrest.
* An arrest occurs, but the case is dismissed because the police illegally seized the only evidence of crime.
* A person is arrested and charged with a crime, then enters into a plea bargain with the government, agreeing to plead “guilty” in exchange for some form of leniency, such as a lighter sentence.
* A person is brought to trial and found “not guilty,” or acquitted, by a jury.
* A person is convicted by a jury and sentenced to a long prison term.
*******************************************
What Makes a Case a Criminal Case?
There are two fundamentally different types of court cases — criminal and civil. Here’s how to tell the difference. There are two fundamentally different types of court cases — criminal and civil. A criminal case arises when the government seeks to punish an individual for an act that has been classified as a crime by Congress or a state legislature. A civil case, on the other hand, usually has to do with a dispute over the rights and duties that individuals and organizations
legally owe to each other. Among the important differences between criminal and civil cases are these:
* In a criminal case a prosecutor, not the crime victim, initiates and controls the case. The prosecutor may file criminal charges even if the victim doesn’t approve, or refuse to file criminal charges despite the victim’s desire that criminal charges be filed. This method of beginning the case contrasts with civil cases where the injured party is the one who starts the ball rolling — although if you view the prosecutor as a stand-in for the community injured by a crime, then there’s not much difference.
* A person convicted of a crime may pay a fine or be incarcerated or both. People who are held responsible in civil cases may have to pay money damages or give up property, but do not go to jail or prison. (We don’t have “debtors’ prisons” for those who can’t pay a civil judgment.)
* In criminal cases, government-paid lawyers represent defendants who want but can’t afford an attorney. Parties in civil cases, on the other hand, usually have to represent themselves or pay for their own lawyers. (Juvenile court cases and cases involving civil contempt of court where jail is a possibility, are exceptions to this general rule.)
* In criminal cases, the prosecutor has to prove a defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In a civil case, the plaintiff has to show only by a “preponderance of the evidence” (more than 50%) that the defendant is liable for damages.
* Defendants in criminal cases are almost always entitled to a jury trial. A party to a civil action is entitled to a jury trial in some types of cases, but not in others.
* Defendants in civil cases may be jailed for contempt, as happened to Susan McDougal in the Whitewater case.
Sometimes the same conduct may violate both criminal and civil laws. A defendant whose actions violate both criminal and civil rules may be criminally prosecuted by the state and civilly sued by a victim for monetary damages. For instance, in 1995 O. J. Simpson was prosecuted for murder and found not guilty. In an entirely separate case, Simpson was also sued civilly for “wrongful death” by the victims’ families. At the close of the civil case, in 1997, Simpson was found “liable”
for (the civil equivalent to guilty meaning “responsible” for) the victims’ deaths and ordered to pay millions of dollars in damages.
*****************************************
How to Interpret Criminal Statutes
Knowing how to read the law will help you determine whether it’s been broken.
All criminal statutes define crimes in terms of required acts and a required state of mind, usually described as the actor’s “intent”. These requirements are known as the “elements” of the offense. A prosecutor must convince a judge or jury that the person charged with the crime (the defendant) did the acts and had the intent described in the law. For example, commercial
burglary is commonly defined as entering a structure (such as a store) belonging to another person, with the intent to commit petty or grand theft (that is, to steal) or any felony. To convict a person of this offense, the prosecutor would have to prove three elements:
1. The defendant entered the structure.
2. The structure belonged to another person.
3. At the time the defendant entered the structure, he intended to commit petty or grand theft or any felony.
Example: Steve was stopped by a security guard as he left a department store. His oversized backpack contained three pairs of expensive running shoes and nothing else. After interviewing the guard, who described seeing Steve take the shoes and leave without paying for them, the prosecuting attorney decided to charge Steve with burglary.
At the trial, the prosecutor was able to prove the following three elements:
1. Steve entered a structure listed in the burglary statute. (The state statute included the term “store.”)
2. The structure belonged to another person. It was easy to show that Steve did not own the store.
3. Steve entered with the intent to commit theft. The prosecutor convinced the jury that Steve’s use of an oversized, empty
backpack was evidence that, at the time he entered the store, he was planning to stash stolen goods. The jury didn’t buy Steve’s claim that he only decided to steal the shoes (and therefore formed the intent to steal) after he had entered the store.
*****************************************
How Defendants’ Mental States Affect Their Responsibility for a Crime
What a defendant intended to do can affect whether a crime has occurred.
What makes a crime a crime? In most cases, an act is a crime because the person committing it intended to do something that the state legislature or Congress has determined is wrong. This mental state is generally referred to as “mens rea,” Latin for “guilty mind.”
The “mens rea” concept is based on a belief that people should be punished only when they have acted in a way that makes them morally blameworthy. In the legal system’s eyes, people who intentionally engage in the behavior prohibited by a law are morally blameworthy.
Careless Behavior
“Ordinary” carelessness is not a crime. For example, careless (”negligent”) drivers are not usually criminally prosecuted if they cause an accident, though they may have to pay civil damages to those harmed by their negligence.However, more-than-ordinary carelessness (”recklessness” or “criminal negligence”) can amount to mens rea. In general, carelessness can be a crime when a person “recklessly disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk.” It’s up to judges and juries to evaluate a person’s conduct according to community standards and decide whether the carelessness is serious enough to demonstrate mens rea.
Unintentional vs. Intentional Conduct
People who unintentionally engage in illegal conduct may be morally innocent; this is known as making a “mistake of fact.” Someone who breaks the law because he or she honestly misperceives reality lacks mens rea and should not be charged with or convicted of a crime. For example, if Paul Smith hits Jonas Sack because he reasonably but mistakenly thought Sack was about to hit him, Smith would not have mens rea.
While a “mistake of fact” can negate mens rea, a “mistake of law” usually cannot. Even when people don’t realize what they are doing is illegal, if they intentionally commit the act, they are almost always guilty. For example, if Jo sells cocaine believing that it is sugar, Jo has made a mistake of fact and lacks mens rea. However, if Jo sells cocaine in the honest but mistaken belief that it is legal to do so, Jo will have mens rea since she intentionally committed the act. Perhaps the best explanation for the difference is that if a “mistake of law” allowed people to escape punishment, the legal system would encourage people to remain ignorant of legal rules.
Crimes Requiring “Knowing” Engagement in Criminal Conduct Some laws punish only violators who “knowingly” engage in illegal conduct. What a person has to “know” to be guilty of a crime depends on the behavior that a law makes illegal.
For example:
* A drug law makes it illegal for a person to “knowingly” import an illegal drug into the United States. To convict a defendant of this crime, the prosecution would have to prove that a defendant knew that what he brought into the United States was an illegal drug.
* Another drug law makes it illegal to furnish drug paraphernalia with “knowledge” that it will be used to cultivate or ingest an illegal drug. To convict a defendant of this crime, the prosecution would have to prove that a defendant who sold or supplied drug paraphernalia knew about the improper purposes to which the paraphernalia would be put.
************************************************
Criminal Offenses
Criminal offenses are classified according to their seriousness. For crimes against property, the gravity of a crime is generally commensurate with the value of the property taken or damaged: the greater the property value, the more serious the crime. For crimes against persons, the same proportionality principle applies to bodily injury inflicted upon individuals:
the greater the injury, the more serious the crime. However, a host of other factors can influence the seriousness of a criminal offense. These factors include whether the defendant had a prior criminal record; whether the defendant committed the crime with cruelty, malice, intent, or in reckless disregard of another person’s safety; and whether the victim was a member of a protected class (e.g., minors, minorities, senior citizens, the handicapped, etc.). Thus, a less serious crime can be made more serious by the presence of these additional factors, and a more serious crime can be made less serious by their absence.
Three categories of criminal offenses were known at common law, treason, felony, and misdemeanor, with treason being the most serious type of crime and misdemeanor being the least serious. The common law distinction between treason and felony was particularly important in England because a traitor’s lands were forfeited to the Crown. Under a doctrine known as “corruption of the blood,” the traitor also lost the right to inherit property from relatives, while the relatives lost the right to inherit from the traitor. U. S. law has never endorsed corruption of the blood as a criminal penalty, and so treason was dropped as a separate classification of crime in the colonies.
Today every U. S. jurisdiction retains the distinction between felony level criminal offenses and misdemeanor level offenses. However, most jurisdictions have added a third-tier of criminal offense, typically called an infraction or a petty offense.
Although the definitions of all three classes differ from one jurisdiction to the next, they do share some common characteristics.
Felonies, Misdemeanors, and Infractions
The power to define a crime and classify it as a felony, misdemeanor, or infraction rests solely with the legislature at the federal level (see U. S. v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 11 U.S. 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 [U. S. 1812]). Federal courts do not have the power to punish any act that is not forbidden by federal statute. Most crimes made punishable by federal law are set forth in Title 18 U.S.C. sections 1 et seq.
In the eighteenth century U. S. courts possessed the power to define crimes and establish classifications for criminal offenses. These judicially-created offenses were known as common law crimes. By the early nineteenth century, federal common law crimes were under increasing attack as violating the mandate of the separation of powers established by the U. S.
Constitution. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to make law, while Article III gives the judiciary the power to interpret and apply it. Thus, the constitutionally limited role of federal courts precludes them from defining crimes or creating classifications for criminal offenses.
Most states have also abolished common law crimes. In these states the legislature is given the primary and often sole responsibility for defining illegal behavior (the executive branch in a few states plays a limited lawmaking function via executive orders and administrative agency rules and regulations). In the minority of states that still recognize common law crimes, judges generally are not permitted to create new common law crimes from the bench. Instead, all 50 states and the District of Columbia rely on their penal code to shape the nature and scope of their jurisdiction’s criminal laws, and when a penal code designates an offense as a felony, misdemeanor, or infraction, that designation is normally deemed conclusive by the courts.
**************************************************
Felonies
Felonies are deemed the most serious class of offense throughout the United States. Many jurisdictions separate felonies into their own distinct classes so that a repeat offender convicted of committing a felony in a heinous fashion receives a more severe punishment than a first-time offender convicted of committing a felony in a comparatively less hateful, cruel, or injurious fashion. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the crime, felonies are generally punishable by a fine, imprisonment for more than a year, or both. At common law felonies were crimes that typically involved moral turpitude, or offenses that violated the moral standards of the community. Today many crimes classified as felonies are still considered offensive to the moral standards in most American communities. They include terrorism, treason, arson, murder, rape, robbery, burglary, and kidnapping, among others.
In many state penal codes a felony is defined not only by the length of incarceration but also by the place of incarceration.
For example, crimes that are punishable by incarceration in a state prison are deemed felonies in a number of states, while crimes that are punishable only by incarceration in a local jail are deemed misdemeanors. For crimes that may be punishable by incarceration in either a local jail or a state prison, the crime will normally be classified according to where the defendant actually serves the sentence.
*******************************************
Misdemeanors
A misdemeanor, a criminal offense that is less serious than a felony and more serious than an infraction, is generally punishable by a fine or incarceration in a local jail, or both. Many jurisdictions separate misdemeanors into three classes:
high or gross misdemeanors, ordinary misdemeanors, and petty misdemeanors. Petty misdemeanors usually contemplate a jail sentence of less than six months and a fine of $500 or less. The punishment prescribed for gross misdemeanors is greater than that prescribed for ordinary misdemeanors and less than that prescribed for felonies. Some states even define a gross misdemeanor as “any crime that is not a felony or a misdemeanor” (see MN ST ยง 609.02). Legislatures sometimes use such broad
definitions to provide prosecutors and judges with flexibility in charging and sentencing for criminal conduct that calls for a punishment combining a fine normally assessed for a misdemeanor and an incarceration period normally given for a felony.
*********************************************
Infractions
An infraction, sometimes called a petty offense, is the violation of an administrative regulation, an ordinance, a municipal code, and, in some jurisdictions, a state or local traffic rule. In many states an infraction is not considered a criminal offense and thus not punishable by incarceration. Instead, such jurisdictions treat infractions as civil offenses. Even in jurisdictions that treat infractions as criminal offenses, incarceration is not usually contemplated as punishment, and when it is, confinement is limited to serving time in a local jail. Like misdemeanors, infractions are often defined in very broad language. For example, one state provides that any offense that is defined “without either designation as a felony or a misdemeanor or specification of the class or penalty is a petty offense”.
***********************************************
Implications of a Crime’s Classification
The category under which a crime is classified can make a difference in both substantive and procedural criminal law. Substantive criminal law defines the elements of many crimes in reference to whether they were committed in furtherance of a felony. Burglary, for example, requires proof that the defendant broke into another person’s dwelling with the intent to
commit a felony. If a defendant convinces a jury that he only had the intent to steal a misdemeanor’s worth of property after breaking into the victim’s home, the jury cannot return a conviction for burglary. The substantive consequences for being convicted of a felony are also more far reaching than the consequences for other types of crimes. One convicted of a felony is disqualified from holding public office in many jurisdictions. Felons may also lose
their right to vote or serve on a jury. In several states attorneys convicted of a felony lose their right to practice law. Misdemeanants with no felony record rarely face such serious consequences.
Criminal procedure sets forth different rules that govern courts, defendants, and law enforcement agents depending on the level of offense charged. The Fourth Amendment to the U. S Constitution allows police officers to make warrantless arrests of suspected felons in public areas so long as the arresting officer possesses probable cause that the suspect committed the
crime. Officers may make warrantless arrests of suspected misdemeanants only if the crime is committed in the officer’s presence. Police officers do not have the authority to shoot an alleged misdemeanant while attempting to make an arrest, unless the shots are fired in self-defense. Officers generally have more authority to use deadly force when effectuating the arrest of a felon.
Most criminal courts have limited jurisdiction over the kinds of cases they can hear. A court with jurisdiction over only misdemeanors has no power to try a defendant charged with a felony. Defendants may be charged by information (i.e., a formal written instrument setting forth the criminal accusations against a defendant) when they are accused of a misdemeanor,
whereas many jurisdictions require that defendants be charged by a grand jury when they are accused of a felony .
**************************************************
contd…
Implications of a Crime’s Classification
Defendants charged with capital felony offenses (i.e., offenses for which the death penalty might be imposed as a sentence) are entitled to have their cases heard by a jury of twelve persons who must unanimously agree as to the issue of guilt before returning a conviction. Defendants charged with non-capital felonies and misdemeanors may have their cases heard by as few as
six jurors who, depending on the jurisdiction and the size of the jury actually impaneled, may return a conviction on a less than unanimous vote. The right to trial by jury is generally not afforded to defendants charged only with infractions or petty offenses. Defendants charged with felonies or misdemeanors that actually result in confinement to a jail or prison are entitled to the advice and representation of a court appointed counsel (see USCA.Const.Amend.6). Defendants charged with infractions or misdemeanors that do not result in incarceration are not entitled to court appointed counsel.
Accused felons must generally be present during their trials, while accused misdemeanants may agree to waive their right to be present. The testimony of defendants and witnesses may be impeached on the ground of a former felony conviction. But a misdemeanor is not considered sufficiently serious to be grounds for impeachment in most jurisdictions. Because of all the
additional procedural safeguards afforded to defendants charged with more serious criminal offenses, defendants must usually consent to any prosecution effort to downgrade a criminal offense to a lower level at which fewer safeguards are offered.
***************************************************
What’s the Difference Between a Felony and a Misdemeanor?
Most states break their crimes into two major groups: felonies and misdemeanors. Whether a crime falls into one category or the other depends on the potential punishment. If a law provides for imprisonment for longer than a year, it is usually considered a felony. If the potential punishment is for a year or less, then the crime is considered a misdemeanor.
In some states, certain crimes are described on the books as “wobblers,” which means that the prosecutor may charge the crime as either a misdemeanor (carrying less than a year’s jail time as punishment) or a felony (carrying a year or more). Behaviors punishable only by fine are usually not considered crimes at all, but infractions — for example, traffic tickets.
But a legislature may on occasion punish behavior only by a fine and still provide that it is a misdemeanor — such as possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for personal use in California.
************************************************
How People Get Charged with Crimes
Learn how police officers and prosecutors initiate criminal cases. After an arrest, the arrest report is sent to a prosecutor, whose job it is to initiate and prosecute criminal cases. Arrest
reports summarize the events leading up to arrests and provide numerous other details, such as dates, time, location, and weather conditions of the crime, and witnesses’ names and addresses if that information is available. The prosecutor will either:
* decide that the case should be charged (as a felony or a misdemeanor), and file a complaint with the trial court.
* decide that the case should be charged as a felony and bring evidence before citizens serving as grand jurors, who will decide what charges, if any, to file, or
* decide that the matter should not be pursued. Prosecutors can file charges on all crimes for which the police arrested a suspect. Or, they can file charges that are more or less severe than the charges leveled by the police.
Charges Must Be Filed Quickly
For suspects who are in custody, speedy trial laws typically require prosecutors to file charges, if at all, within 72 hours of arrest. Some jurisdictions require prosecutors to charge a suspect even sooner. For example, California requires that charges be filed within 48 hours. However, prosecutors’ initial charges are subject to change. For example, a prosecutor may
not make a final decision on what charges to file until after a preliminary hearing, which may take place more than a month after arrest.
How a Prosecutor Decides Whether to File Charges
A prosecutor’s decision to file charges may be influenced by factors beyond the specific facts of the incident described in the police report. Some prosecution offices adopt policies on certain types of crimes, often in response to community pressure, and these policies may dictate the prosecutor’s approach in any given case. For example, an office may decide that arrests for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol will always be taken to trial and not “plea bargained” down to lesser offenses such as reckless driving.
***********************************************
Common Defenses to Criminal Charges
Here are a handful of defenses a defendant can use to get off the hook.
To convict a criminal defendant, the prosecutor must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As part of this process, the defendant is given an opportunity to present a defense. There are many types of defenses, from “I didn’t do it” to “I did it, but I was too drunk to know what I was doing.”
The Defendant Didn’t Do It
Most often defendants try to avoid punishment by claiming they did not commit the act in question.
The Presumption of Innocence
All people accused of a crime are legally presumed to be innocent until they are convicted, either in a trial or as a result of pleading guilty. This presumption means not only that the prosecutor must convince the jury of the defendant’s guilt, but also that the defendant need not say or do anything in his own defense. A defendant may simply remain silent, not present any
witnesses, and argue that the prosecutor failed to prove his or her case. If the prosecutor can’t convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, the defendant goes free. Reasonable Doubt
The prosecutor must convince the judge or jury hearing the case that the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This standard is very hard to meet. As a practical matter, the high burden of proof in criminal cases means that judges and jurors are supposed to resolve all doubts about the meaning of the evidence in favor of the defendant. With such a high standard imposed on the prosecutor, a defendant’s most common defense is often to argue that there is in fact reasonable doubt.
The Alibi Defense
An alibi defense consists of evidence that a defendant was somewhere other than the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. For example, assume that Freddie is accused of committing a burglary on Elm Street at midnight on Friday, September 13. Freddie’s alibi defense might consist of testimony that at the time of the burglary, Freddie was watching Casablanca at the Maple Street Cinema.
********************************
contd….
The Defendant Did It, But …
Sometimes a defendant can avoid punishment even if the prosecutor shows that the defendant did, without a doubt, commit the act in question.
Self-Defense
Self-defense is a defense commonly asserted by someone charged with a crime of violence, such as battery (striking someone), assault with a deadly weapon, or murder. The defendant admits that she did in fact commit the crime, but claims that it was justified by the other person’s threatening actions. The core issues in most self-defense cases are:
* Who was the aggressor?
* Was the defendant’s belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable one?
* If so, was the force used by the defendant also reasonable?
Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to protect themselves from physical harm. This means that a person does not have to wait until she is actually struck to act in self-defense. If a reasonable person in the same circumstances would think that she is about to be physically attacked, she has the right to strike first and prevent the attack. But she cannot use more force than is reasonable — if she does, she may be guilty of a crime.
The Insanity Defense
The insanity defense is based on the principle that punishment is justified only if the defendant is capable of controlling his or her behavior and understanding that what he or she has done is wrong. Because some people suffering from a mental disorder are not capable of knowing or choosing right from wrong, the insanity defense prevents them from being criminally punished.
The insanity defense is an extremely complex topic; many scholarly works are devoted entirely to explaining its nuances. Here are some major points of interest:
* Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, defendants rarely enter pleas of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” When they do, judges and jurors rarely uphold it.
* Various definitions of insanity are in use because neither the legal system nor psychiatrists can agree on a single meaning of insanity in the criminal law context. The most popular definition is the “McNaghten rule,” which defines insanity as “the inability to distinguish right from wrong.” Another common test is known as “irresistible impulse”: a person may know that an act is wrong, but because of mental illness he cannot control his actions (he’s described as acting out of an “irresistible impulse”).
* Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not automatically set free. They are usually confined to a mental institution until their sanity is established. These defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than they would have spent in prison had they been convicted.
* An insanity defense normally rests on the testimony of a psychiatrist, who testifies for the defendant after examining him and his past history, and the facts of the case. Courts appoint psychiatrists at government expense to assist poor defendants who cannot afford to hire their own psychiatrists.
* Once a defendant raises his or her sanity as a defense, he or she must submit to psychological tests conducted at the behest of the prosecution. This can be a very painful and humiliating experience, one that many defendants choose to forgo rather than rely on the insanity defense.
************************************************
contd…
Common Defenses to Criminal Charges
Under the Influence
Defendants who commit crimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol sometimes argue that their mental functioning was so impaired that they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Generally, however, voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct. Defendants know (or should know) that alcohol and drugs affect mental functioning, and thus they should be
held legally responsible if they commit crimes as a result of their voluntary use.
Some states allow an exception to this general rule. If the defendant is accused of committing a crime that requires “specific intent” (intending the precise consequences, as well as intending to do the physical act that leads up to the consequences), the defendant can argue that he was too drunk or high to have formed that intent. This is only a partial defense, however, because it doesn’t entirely excuse the defendant’s actions. In this situation, the defendant will usually
be convicted of another crime that doesn’t require proof of a specific intent. For example, a defendant may be prosecuted for the crime of assault with specific intent to kill but only convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, which doesn’t require specific intent.
Entrapment
Entrapment occurs when the government induces a person to commit a crime and then tries to punish the person for committing it. However, if a judge or jury believes that a suspect was predisposed to commit the crime anyway, the suspect may be found guilty even if a government agent suggested the crime and helped the defendant to commit it. Entrapment defenses are
therefore especially difficult for defendants with prior convictions for the same type of crime.
***********************************************
