8. Defenses Flashcards
what is the M’Naghten Rule on insanity? (aka–right/wrong test)
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
what is the irresistible impulse test for insanity? (aka–self control test)
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
what is the Durham test for insanity? (aka–products test)
(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)
what is the ALI/MPC test for insanity?
(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
In most states, who bears the burden of proving insanity and by what standard?
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)
under the MPC, who bears the burden of proving sanity?
the prosecution bears and the burden and must prove sanity BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
must the insanity defense be raised at arraignment?
can be raised then, but doesn’t have to be (won’t be waived if defendant simply pleads not guilty)
does the intoxication defense have to involve alcohol?
no, can be intoxicated via drugs, medicine, etc
when can an intoxication defense be raised?
whenever intoxication negates one of the elements of the crime
when is intoxication considered “voluntary”?
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
are addicts considered to be “voluntarily” intoxicated?
yes
when is intoxication considered “involuntary”? (3 situations)
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
what level of liability follows acts committed by a child under age 7? (CL)
no liability
what presumption follows acts committed by a child between the ages of 7-14? (CL)
rebuttable presumption that the child was unable to understand the wrongfulness of their acts
what level of liability follows acts committed by a child over the age of 14? (CL)
can be treated as adults
under modern statutes, when can a child be convicted of a crime?
no child can be convicted until (usually) about 13/14 BUT can be found delinquent in special juvenile or family courts
when may a person without fault use non-deadly force?
may use such force as the person reasonably believes is necessary to protect themself from the imminent use of unlawful force upon themself
does the defense of non-deadly force impose a duty to retreat?
no
when may a person use deadly force in self defense?
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
under the majority view, is there a duty to retreat before using deadly force?
no
under the minority view, when is the duty to retreat NOT required for deadly force?
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
under what circumstances may the initial aggressor use self defense?
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
when does a person have a right to defend others?
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)
when may a person use non-deadly force in defense of their own dwelling?
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
when may a person use DEADLY force in defense of their own dwelling?
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
when is deadly force allowed for defense of property?
NEVER
when is reasonable, non-deadly force allowed for defense of property?
may be used to defend property in one’s possession from what they reasonably believe is an imminent, unlawful interference
when is reasonable, non-deadly force NOT allowed for defense of property?
when a request to desist or refrain from the activity would suffice
