6) Defenses

Question 1

kinds of defenses

Answer 1

1) justification

2) excuse

Question 2

justification: def

Answer 2

what would normally be unlawful isn’t under these facts

Question 3

justifications: list

Answer 3

1) self-defense
2) defense of others
3) defense of property
4) necessity

Question 4

excuse: def

Answer 4

excuse “forgives” D for committing unjustified crime, bc of some disturbance of D’s mental processes (nullifies culpability)

was D’s mental process overwhelmed to the point that unfair to hold him accountabe?

Question 5

excuse: list

Answer 5

1) insanity
2) involunary intoxication
3) duress

Question 6

insanity: result

Answer 6

no criminal liability

Question 7

insanity: tests

Answer 7

1) M’Naghten
2) irresistable impulse
3) MPC
4) Durham/New Hampshire rule

Question 8

insanity: M’Naghten test

Answer 8

(focus on reasoning abilities/cognitive)

1) severe mental disease or defect
2) D UNABLE TO KNOW either
a) nature/quality of act, or
b) that what he was doing was wrong

some js parse knowing it’s wrong from knowing it’s illegal

Question 9

insanity: irresistable impulse test

Answer 9

focus on volition

1) severe mental disease or defect + so
2) incapable of controlling the impulse to commit a crime

Question 10

insanity: MPC test

Answer 10

combines “cognitive” and “volition” tests – D can’t conform his conduct to requirements of the law for either reason

also softens M’Naghten to “lack of substantial capacity” (instead of incapable of knowing)

Question 11

insantiy: Durham/New Hampshire rule test

Answer 11

(minority) – D’s unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect (but-for cause)

Question 12

insanity: Durham/NH rule aka

Answer 12

product rule

Question 13

involuntary intoxication: result

Answer 13

total defense (not guilty at all)

Question 14

involuntary intoxication: rule

Answer 14

defense to any crime requiring proof of specific intent (if negates it)

Question 15

involuntary vs voluntary intoxication

Answer 15

involuntary can be complete defense

voluntary: not a complete defense, but reduces D’s level of culpability by negating specific intent element
- -does not negate general intent

Question 16

duress: rule

Answer 16

excuses crim conduct if D reaosnably believes only way to avoid unlawful threats (usu from human) of GBH or imminent death is to engage in unlawful conduct

Question 17

duress / homicide

Answer 17

NOT a defense to murder

exception: underlying felony in FM

Question 18

self-defense: eleemnts

Answer 18

1) honest AND reasonable (subj+obj)
2) D is V of unlawful threat (not initial provoker)
3) D in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm
4) D uses proportional force (no more than reasonably nec)

Question 19

self-defense: deadly force?

Answer 19

ok only in rp to imminent threat of death or Great BI

Question 20

self-defense: first aggressor: CL

Answer 20

aggressor can only regain right of self-defense if:

completely withdraws (perceived by V)

Question 21

self-defense: first aggressor: modern

Answer 21

aggressor can regain right of self defense if:

first V responds to the aggression w excessive force

Question 22

self-defense: retreat rule: CL

Answer 22

V of unlawful violence had duty to “retreat to the wall” before homicidal self defense necessary

Question 23

self-defense: Modern rule

Answer 23

(35 states): stand your ground

Question 24

self-defense: retreat rule: exceptions

Answer 24

(even in states that still have retreat rule)

1) D is in his own home, car, or office (castle exception) OR
2) retreat is not feasible alternative

Question 25

defense of 3rd person: def

Answer 25

justified if:

1) unlawful imminent threat of bodily harm 9to the 3rd person)

Question 26

defense of 3rd person: deadly force

Answer 26

only if threat to ther person is imminent death or GBH

Question 27

defense of 3rd person: majority rule

Answer 27

if D misjudged the situation and reasonably but mistakenly uses force against V to protect 3rd party (wrong V), still can use defense

Question 28

defense of 3rd person: minority rule

Answer 28

D steps into shoes of person protected. So if person protected was first aggressor, failed to retreat, etc. then this D has no defense either

Question 29

defense of property

Answer 29

reasonable, non-deadly force is justified to defend your property from theft, destruction, trespass if:

1) D has reasonable belief property in immediate danger
2) no greater force than nec is used (“stop” –> nondeadly)

Question 30

defense of property: deadly force

Answer 30

may never be used (unless escalates to now threat to person)

Question 31

necessity: elements

Answer 31

crime ok if

1) nec to avoid immediate threat of GREATER harm to ppl/property
2) no reasonable alternative to breaking the law to avoid the greater harm
3) D not responsible for causing the harm

Question 32

necessity: CL vs MPC

Answer 32

at CL never defense for murder

MPC: can be defense for murder (kills 1 person to save lives of many othesr)