7. Defences

Question 1

What is required for insanity to acquit the defendant?

Answer 1

1) Abnormal mental condition
- Cause NOT relevant

2) At time of crime

Question 2

What are the types of insanity?

Answer 2

M’Naghten Rule

1) Disease/Defect of reasoning
2) D lacks ability at time of action to know wrongfulness/nature of action
- NOT delusion (false beliefs)/belief that his acts are morally right/loss of control

Irrisistible Impulse Test

1) Mental illness
2) D cannot control actions (unlike M’Naghten Rule)/conform to law

Durham/New Hampshire Test

1) D’s crime ‘but for’ mental disease/defect
2) Applicable in New Hampshire only

Model Penal Code Test

1) Mental disease/defect
2) D lacked substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of conduct/conform conduct to law

Question 3

What type of crimes does insanity apply to?

Answer 3

ALL crimes

Question 4

What is the required burden of proof for insanity?

Answer 4

Most states (D presumed sane)

1) D must prove insanity
2) By preponderance of evidence

Some states + MPC (D must raise issue)

1) Prosecution must disprove insanity
2) Beyond reasonable doubt

Question 5

What is required for intoxication?

Answer 5

Voluntary

1) Intentional taking of substance
- NO need for intent to become intoxicated
- NOT purposely take substance to use as intoxication defence
2) NO duress

Involuntary

• Taking with NO knowledge of intoxicating nature
• Direct duress
• Taking pursuant to medical advice + NO knowledge of intoxicating nature

Question 6

Which crimes may intoxication be used to negate state of mind?

Answer 6

Voluntary intoxication

• Specific intent crimes
• Reduce first degree murder (Prosecution must prove premeditated + deliberate) => Second degree murder
• NOT general intent/malice/strict liability/recklessness/negligence crimes
• NOT reduce second degree murder (presumed) (reckless/negligent) => Manslaughter

Question 7

How may D use both intoxication and insanity defences?

Answer 7

Continuous or excessive drinking/drug use => Insanity

Question 8

What is required for mistake/ignorance of fact to negate Defendant’s state of mind?

Answer 8

General intent/Malice crime
- Reasonable mistake

Specific intent crime
- Reasonable/NOT reasonable mistake

NOT strict liability crime
- NO state of mind involved

Question 9

What is required for mistake/ignorance of law to negate Defendant’s state of mind?

Answer 9

• Statute NOT published/reasonably available before D’s conduct
• D reasonably relied on statute/judicial decision/attorney’s advice
• D made mistake re elements of crime

=> Negate state of mind (statutory requirement of concerned crime)
- Generally NOT defence to crime, even if reasonable mistake

Question 10

What is required for consent to negate element of an offence as complete defence?

Answer 10

1) Voluntary
2) Victim legally capable of giving consent
3) NO fraud in obtaining consent

Question 11

What is required for entrapment?

Answer 11

Trick D to commit crime to secure their prosecution (difficult to establish)

1) Criminal design originated with law enforcement officer/agent
- NOT private citizen
- NOT material provided for crime by government agent

2) D NOT predisposed to commit crime before initial gov contact
- Prosecution must then show predisposition beyond reasonable doubt
- NOT Government offering opportunity for D to commit crime