New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Week 2 Fundamentals of Criminal Law Notes!

by: Maricela Castro

Week 2 Fundamentals of Criminal Law Notes! CJ 2360.002

Marketplace > Texas State University > Criminal Justice > CJ 2360.002 > Week 2 Fundamentals of Criminal Law Notes
Maricela Castro


Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Hi guys, these are the notes for week 2 I apologize for the delay, please contact me for any questions I'd be more than happy to assist!
Fundamentals of Criminal Law
Dr. J. D. Elshoff, B.A., J.D., C.Min.,
Class Notes
Law, Criminal, criminology, Criminal Justice, Austin, texas state, UH, elshoff, study, Case Study, case series, CJ, cj2360, San, sanmarcos, texas
25 ?




Popular in Fundamentals of Criminal Law

Popular in Criminal Justice

This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Maricela Castro on Sunday September 18, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to CJ 2360.002 at Texas State University taught by Dr. J. D. Elshoff, B.A., J.D., C.Min., in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 36 views. For similar materials see Fundamentals of Criminal Law in Criminal Justice at Texas State University.


Reviews for Week 2 Fundamentals of Criminal Law Notes!


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 09/18/16
CJ 2360.002 FUNDAMENTALS OF CRIMINAL LAW WEEK 2 9/6-8/2016 • Code of Hammurabi, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth • In Texas the 3 DWI is a Felony, 1 & 2 are Misdemeanors. • Chapter 2-Criminal Liability • Rationale: Although laws were designed to protect society, the unbridled implementation by government agents gave rise to the need to place limitations on the government • Bill of Rights—this refers to the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, to protect citizens from unreasonable conduct on the part of the federal government. As time went on, additional amendments were added, bringing the number to 27 today. • 4 th o no unreasonable search & seizure th • 5 o no double jeopardy o no self-incrimination (right to remain silent) • 6th o right to counsel § only at a critical stage of the procedure/preceding o right to proper venue § county where the case is brought § if you want to change venue, you need to do that in the first motion, or you’ve waived it. th • 8 o no excessive bail o no cruel and unusual punishment • 14 th o due process (1-10 applied to the states) o equal protection • Jurisdiction—refers to the type of cases a court may hear • Venue—the geographical location where a trial should be held; if venue is improper, either side may move for a change of venue (and do it immediately!) • Right to Privacy o There is no mention of a right to privacy in the Constitution; however, the Supreme Court has determined it to be substantive right under the due process and freedom of association clauses. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), 381 U.S. 479 • CORRECTION—one of the answers is Kentucky Fried Chicken and that’s the WRONG answer. • Cruel and unusual punishment—physical or mental punishment in excess of that given to the people under similar circumstances; banned by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. • Due process—a basic constitutional principle based on the concepts of privacy of the individual, limitations on governmental power, and a safeguard against arbitrary and unfair governmental actions. o due process includes the basic rights of a defendant in a criminal proceeding. • Social harm—the proposition that, before an act may be declared a crime, there must be some harm to society resulting from the commission of the act. CJ 2360.002 FUNDAMENTALS OF CRIMINAL LAW WEEK 2 • Legality—a guide for judges based on the common law principle that sets limitations on the formation, creation, and interpretation of criminal laws. • Ex post facto laws—law that make acts criminal after they were committed, retroactively lessens the evidence required for a conviction, or increase the punishment for previously committed criminal actsth • Equal protection—a clause in the 14 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that requires that persons under like circumstances be given equal protection in the enjoyment of personal rights and the prevention and redress of wrongs. o The constitutional guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws that is enjoyed by other persons or otherthlasses in like circumstances. • Double jeopardy—a protection in the 5 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enforceable against states through the 14 Amendment, which protects an individual against second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal or conviction and against multiple punishments for the same offense. • Conviction—a judgement of guilt; verdict by a jury or by a judge in a nonjury or bench trial. o Note: a plea of guilty is not a conviction until it is accepted by a judge and judgement is entered by the judge. Case Briefs—Chapters 1&2 9/1/2016 1. U.S. v. Grimad (1911) (congress may delegate to an administrative agency, the power to make regulations that may be enforced by criminal procedures) a. Defense, no crime actually committed, force reserve act 1891, Department of Agriculture, defense that they shouldn’t. Whether or not have jurisdiction to do that. 2. Moore v. City of Albany (1967) (Stare decisis applies in future cases when the facts of a subsequent case are substantially the same) a. 3. State v. Starfield (MN 1992) (conviction upheld where woman was in car, and intoxicated, but the car was stuck in a snowbank) a. Starfield license suspended, dwi. Admitted under the influence however her son was driving. Issue turns on actual physical control. Some states are different 4. City of Kalispell v. Koestner (2001) (Whether the justice court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from municipal court.) a. Koestner wreck less driving, jury trial. Issue no jurisdiction to hold. 5. Ottertail Power Co. v. Von Bank (1974), 72 N.D. 497 (stare decisis is founded on the theory that security and certainty require following established principles, under which rights may accrue) a. Fact that Federal Power Commission has authority to compel involuntary interconnections of power did not insulate electric power company from antitrust regulation for refusing to wholesale or wheel power to municipal distribution systems. b. I--The court also held that district court should determine whether litigation that power company was found to have sponsored for purpose of delaying and CJ 2360.002 FUNDAMENTALS OF CRIMINAL LAW WEEK 2 preventing the establishment of municipal electric systems in order to preserve power company's predominant position in sale and transmission of electric power was a ‘mere sham.’ c. R/A--An agency of the U.S. government which supervises the development and utilization of power resources on Federal property, regulates the activities of public utilities engaged in interstate commerce, and provides for a uniform system of accounts in the management of electric power enterprises.-Approved July 2, 1890, The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was the first Federal act that outlawed monopolistic business practices. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts. That electric power company found to have engaged in Sherman Act violations to prevent towns from establishing their own power systems when company's retail franchises expired would go downhill if more municipalities would turn to public power did not immunize company's conduct from antitrust regulation. d. C--Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. 9/6-8/2016 1. Robinson v. California (1962), 370 U.S. 660— (8 Amendment prohibits cruel & unusal punishment, also limits the legislature in making some conduct criminal) a. Robinson arrested by police officer that noticed he had heroin marks on his arm. th No person should be under narcotics, unless administered by state licensed, 8 and 14 amendment, analysis if person with addiction was a mental illness, mental illness is something that can’t be made criminal which violates 14 th amendment, considered unconstitutional. Addicted to is not a crime, possession or under the influence is. 2. Powell v. Texas (1966) 392 U.S. 514— (The majority of drug addicts become addicted because of their illegal activities) a. Chronic alcoholic couldn’t control his behavior. Issue whether or not punishing th chronic alcoholic is cruel and unusual punishment prohibited 8 amendment. 3. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972), 405 U.S. 156— (Defendants were charged with “prowling by auto;” the statute was void for vagueness; fails to give notice to persons of ordinary intelligence that certain conduct is prohibited.) definitions to know are vagrancy—the condition of an individual who is idle, has no visible means of support, and travels from place to place without working. a. F~ Eight defendants were convicted in a Florida Municipal Court of violating City of Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance. b. I~ Whether or not a person is given fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden. th th c. R~ Constitutional Law, 14 & 15 Amendments, arrests may be made only on probable cause. d. A~ The Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance, under which petitioners were convicted, is void for vagueness, in that it ‘fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute,’ it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions, it makes criminal activities that by CJ 2360.002 FUNDAMENTALS OF CRIMINAL LAW WEEK 2 modern standards are normally innocent, and it places almost unfettered discretion in the hands of the police. e. C~ Convictions included entailing fines and jail sentences (some of which were suspended) 4. Koon v. U.S. (1996), 518 U.S. 81— (Officers acquitted in state court of violation of a defendant’s civil rights may also be tried in federal court) a. Excessive use of force of Rodney King. Violating victim’s constitutional rights under color of law. Should be imprisoned. Whether not court of appeals, importance of case is double jeopardy, presents you from being tried for same offense in same court. Page 23. 5. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), 381 U.S. 479— (Although not explicitly contained in the Constitution, the framers intended that an independent right of privacy should exist and should protect citizens from government encroachment) a. Ban the use of drug for contraception. Whether or not for a privacy right of married couples. 1, 3, 4 & 5, amendments. 6. Sterling v. Cupp 625 P.2d 123— (For male officers to do a body search of a female absent exigent circumstances invades privacy) a. Male guards searching anals areas of females. Whether or not the prisoners had a constitutional right to privacy. 7. Stanley v. GA U.S. 394 U.S. 557— (Mere possession of obscene photos cannot be constitutionally made a crime) a. Officers under authority of warrant searched a lady’s phone. Convicted of st obscene. Whether or not obscenity of photos violated the 1 amendment. The government can’t determine what people watch or see. Have a right to obscene pictures in your house. 8. In re Michael M. 450 U.S. 464— (California’s statutory rape law does not make it a crime for a 17-year old female, although it is for a 17-year old male) 9. State v. Stanko (Mont. 1998), 974 P.2d 1132— (Reasonable and prudent traffic statute was unconstitutionally vague) a. If you’re driving in a reasonable and prudent manner not committing an offense. Whether or not it’s reasonable prudence. Stanko was found not guilty. The next day speed limit signs were put up. th 10. Hiibel v. 6 Judicial Court (2004), 124 2451— (defendant’s conviction for refusing to stop and identify himself was not a 4 Amendment seizure) a. Defendant was convicted, before justice of the peace, of violating Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute. Whether or not Hiibel violated the 4 Amendment seizure. th Whether or not violated the 5 amendment against self incrimination. In order for Terry stop to be constitutionally reasonable, officer’s action must be justified at its inception, and reasonably related in scope circumstances which justified interference in first place. He did not violate 4 or 5 amendments. 11. Gardner v. State (1978), 569 S.W. 2d 74— (rape in the back seat of a car travelling through 3 states allowed the prosecution in any of the states) a. Raped 16yr old in back seat with driver and passenger. Whether or not Arkansas had jurisdiction or venue over the case. J Thank you for reading! PLEASE CONTACT ME IF THERE’S ANY ERRORS OR MISSING POINTS I’D BE GLAD TO ADDRESS THEM


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Anthony Lee UC Santa Barbara

"I bought an awesome study guide, which helped me get an A in my Math 34B class this quarter!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.