State criminal laws

[Notassmartasithought]

The Constitution left most criminal law to the states. Did all of the ‘colonies’ have comprehensive criminal statutes that they just carried into statehood, or was there some template going around to try to unify criminal codes, or what?

Couldn’t find a thread abut this, by the way.

[friedo]

The template going around was the Common Law of England, which defines through a few centuries of tradition all your basic crimes.

Since the colonial days, most states have codified much of their criminal code, so crimes are more rigorously defined and standardized. In the 20th century, the Model Penal Code played a large part in inspiring how codification was approached in a large number of states.

Most criminal prosecutions no longer arise under the common law, but the English system still defines things like basic trial procedure, the role of juries, and the adversarial system.

Most state constitutions explicitly declare that that the common law of England constitutes the guiding legal principal of the land, except where the constitution or state statute contradicts it.

Here is what New York’s Constitution has to say about the matter, for example.

§14. Such parts of the common law, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of the said colony, and of the convention of the State of New York, in force on the twentieth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered; and such acts of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same. But all such parts of the common law, and such of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated.

An exception is Louisiana, whose legal system is partly based on the civil law system of continental Europe. (“Civil law” here meaning a system separate from common law, not lawsuits.)

[Hello_Again]

@friedo

The template going around was the Common Law of England, which defines through a few centuries of tradition all your basic crimes.

Since the colonial days, most states have codified much of their criminal code, so crimes are more rigorously defined and standardized. In the 20th century, the Model Penal Code played a large part in inspiring how codification was approached in a large number of states.

Most criminal prosecutions no longer arise under the common law, but the English system still defines things like basic trial procedure, the role of juries, and the adversarial system.

Most state constitutions explicitly declare that that the common law of England constitutes the guiding legal principal of the land, except where the constitution or state statute contradicts it.

The way I read it, that quote says that all common law crimes are repugnant to the State of New York and are abolished, but statutory crimes already in existence are maintained.

In the U.S. today, common law crimes are no longer possible. Due Process requires that crimes be “voluntary acts specified in advance by statute.” I am given to understand that in England at least, a common law crime is a possible, if rare, occurance.

it is interesting to note that the Multistate Bar Exam continues to quixotically claim the existence of common law crimes in the U.S. As a result, every year thousands of aspiring attorneys memorize the definition of “common law robbery” and other crimes even though such a thing literally does not exist.