8. Defenses

Question 1

what is the M’Naghten Rule on insanity? (aka–right/wrong test)

Answer 1

MOST POPULAR
a defendant is entitled to acquittal if…
1) a disease of the mind
2) caused a defect of reason
3) such that the defendant lacked the ability at the time of their actions to either KNOW the wrongfulness of their actions OR to UNDERSTAND the nature/quality of their actions

Question 2

what is the irresistible impulse test for insanity? (aka–self control test)

Answer 2

defendant entitled to acquittal only if, because of a mental illness, they were unable to control their actions OR conform their conduct to the law

Question 3

what is the Durham test for insanity? (aka–products test)

Answer 3

(minority view)
defendant entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of their mental illness (would not have been committed but for the disease)

Question 4

what is the ALI/MPC test for insanity?

Answer 4

(modern trend – blend of irresistible impulse and M’Naghten rule)
defendant entitled to acquittal if
1) they had a mental disease or defect, and
2) as result, lacked the capacity to either APPRECIATE the criminality of their conduct OR CONFORM their conduct to the law

Question 5

In most states, who bears the burden of proving insanity and by what standard?

Answer 5

defendant bears the burden and must prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence (if fed court, by clear/convincing evidence)
**NOTE = defendants are PRESUMED sane (they have to raise the issue)

Question 6

under the MPC, who bears the burden of proving sanity?

Answer 6

the prosecution bears and the burden and must prove sanity BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

Question 7

must the insanity defense be raised at arraignment?

Answer 7

can be raised then, but doesn’t have to be (won’t be waived if defendant simply pleads not guilty)

Question 8

does the intoxication defense have to involve alcohol?

Answer 8

no, can be intoxicated via drugs, medicine, etc

Question 9

when can an intoxication defense be raised?

Answer 9

whenever intoxication negates one of the elements of the crime

Question 10

when is intoxication considered “voluntary”?

Answer 10

when it is the result of the intentional taking of a substance known to be intoxicating without duress
**NOTE = defense to SPECIFIC intent crimes ONLY

Question 11

are addicts considered to be “voluntarily” intoxicated?

Answer 11

yes

Question 12

when is intoxication considered “involuntary”? (3 situations)

Answer 12

only if intoxication results from the taking of an intoxicating substance…
1) without knowledge of its nature,
2) under duress imposed by another, or
3) pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the medicine’s intoxicating effects
**NOTE = can be a defense to ALL crimes

Question 12

what level of liability follows acts committed by a child under age 7? (CL)

Answer 12

no liability

Question 13

what presumption follows acts committed by a child between the ages of 7-14? (CL)

Answer 13

rebuttable presumption that the child was unable to understand the wrongfulness of their acts

Question 14

what level of liability follows acts committed by a child over the age of 14? (CL)

Answer 14

can be treated as adults

Question 15

under modern statutes, when can a child be convicted of a crime?

Answer 15

no child can be convicted until (usually) about 13/14 BUT can be found delinquent in special juvenile or family courts

Question 16

when may a person without fault use non-deadly force?

Answer 16

may use such force as the person reasonably believes is necessary to protect themself from the imminent use of unlawful force upon themself

Question 17

does the defense of non-deadly force impose a duty to retreat?

Answer 17

no

Question 18

when may a person use deadly force in self defense?

Answer 18

if the person
1) is without fault,
2) is confronted with unlawful force, and
3) reasonably believes that they are threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm

Question 19

under the majority view, is there a duty to retreat before using deadly force?

Answer 19

no

Question 20

under the minority view, when is the duty to retreat NOT required for deadly force?

Answer 20

1) the attack occurs in the victim’s own home
2) the attack occurs while the victim is making a lawful arrest, or
3) the assailant is in the process of robbing the victim

Question 21

under what circumstances may the initial aggressor use self defense?

Answer 21

only if… (2 options w/ 2 rqmts each)
1) they effectively withdraw from the confrontation AND communicate that to the other person OR
2) victim of initial aggression suddenly escalates the minor fight into a deadly altercation AND initial aggressor has no chance to withdraw

Question 22

when does a person have a right to defend others?

Answer 22

if they reasonably believe that the person assisted has a legal right to use force in their own defense
**ONLY requires the APPEARANCE of the right to use force (no special relationship required)

Question 23

when may a person use non-deadly force in defense of their own dwelling?

Answer 23

when (and to the extent that) they reasonably believe that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate another’s unlawful entry into or attack upon their dwelling

Question 24

when may a person use DEADLY force in defense of their own dwelling?

Answer 24

1) only to prevent a violent entry AND
2) the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to either prevent a personal attack on themself/another in the dwelling OR to prevent an entry to commit a felony in the dwelling

Question 25

when is deadly force allowed for defense of property?

Answer 25

NEVER

Question 26

when is reasonable, non-deadly force allowed for defense of property?

Answer 26

may be used to defend property in one’s possession from what they reasonably believe is an imminent, unlawful interference

Question 27

when is reasonable, non-deadly force NOT allowed for defense of property?

Answer 27

when a request to desist or refrain from the activity would suffice