BAR FLASHCARDS - Crim L 8.- Defenses
INSANITY
There are several formulations of the test to be applied to determine whether, at the time of the crime, the defendant was so mentally ill as to be entitled to acquittal.
M’Naghten Rule
- M’Naghten—defendant does not know right from wrong or does not understand his actions
Under this rule, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if: (1) a disease
of the mind; (2) caused a defect of reason; (3) such that the defen- dant lacked the ability at the time of their actions to either KNOW the WRONGFULNESS of their actions or understand the nature and quality of their actions. Delusions, belief that one’s actions are morally right, or loss of control because of mental illness are not defenses unless this test is met.
Irresistible Impulse Test (self-control test):
Under this test, a defendant is entitled to acquittal only if, because of a mental illness, they were unable to control their actions or conform their conduct to the law.
Durham (or New Hampshire) Test (Products test)
Under this test, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of their mental illness (that is, the crime would not have been committed but for the disease). The Durham test is broader than either the M’Naghten test or the irresistible impulse test. It is followed only in New Hampshire.
A.L.I. or Model Penal Code Test
Under the M.P.C. test (which represents the “modern trend”), a defen- dant is entitled to acquittal if they had a mental disease or defect, and, as a result, they lacked the substantial capacity to either: (1) appreciate the criminality of their conduct; or (2) conform their conduct to the requirements of law.
Insanity tests summary
M’Naghten—defendant does not know right from wrong or does not understand his actions
Irresistible Impulse—(as the name says) an impulse that defendant cannot resist
Durham—but for the mental illness, defendant would not have done the act
A.L.I. or M.P.C.—combination of M’Naghten and irresistible impulse
M’Naghten Rule
Test to be applied to determine whether, at the time of the crime, the defendant was so mentally ill as to be entitled to acquittal.
M’Naghten Rule
- M’Naghten—defendant does not know right from wrong or does not understand his actions
Under this rule, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if: (1) a disease
of the mind; (2) caused a defect of reason; (3) such that the defen- dant lacked the ability at the time of their actions to either KNOW the WRONGFULNESS of their actions or understand the nature and quality of their actions. Delusions, belief that one’s actions are morally right, or loss of control because of mental illness are not defenses unless this test is met.
Irresistible Impulse
Test to be applied to determine whether, at the time of the crime, the defendant was so mentally ill as to be entitled to acquittal.
Irresistible Impulse—(as the name says) an impulse that defendant cannot resist
Irresistible Impulse Test (self-control test): Under this test, a defendant is entitled to acquittal only if, because of a mental illness, they were unable to control their actions or conform their conduct to the law.
Durham
Test to be applied to determine whether, at the time of the crime, the defendant was so mentally ill as to be entitled to acquittal.
Durham—but for the mental illness, defendant would not have done the act.
Durham (or New Hampshire) Test (Products test): Under this test, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of their mental illness (that is, the crime would not have been committed but for the disease). The Durham test is broader than either the M’Naghten test or the irresistible impulse test. It is followed only in New Hampshire.
A.L.I or MPC
Test to be applied to determine whether, at the time of the crime, the defendant was so mentally ill as to be entitled to acquittal.
A.L.I. or M.P.C.—combination of M’Naghten and irresistible impulse
A.L.I. or Model Penal Code Test: Under the M.P.C. test (which represents the “modern trend”), a defen- dant is entitled to acquittal if they had a mental disease or defect, and, as a result, they lacked the substantial capacity to either: (1) appreciate the criminality of their conduct; or (2) conform their conduct to the requirements of law.
Insanity defense - Procedural Issues
a. Burdens of Proof and Persuasion:
b. When Defense May Be Raised:
c. Pretrial Psychiatric Examination:
a. Burdens of Proof and Persuasion: All defendants are presumed sane; the defendant must raise the insanity issue.
In most states, once the issue is raised, the D must prove their insanity, generally by a preponderance of the evidence.
Other states (and the M.P.C.) require the prosecution to prove the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt.
Federal courts require the D to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
b. When Defense May Be Raised: Although the insanity defense may be raised at the arraignment when the plea is taken, the defendant need not raise it then. A simple “not guilty” at that time does not waive the right to raise the defense at some future time.
c. Pretrial Psychiatric Examination: If the defendant does not raise the insanity issue, they may refuse a court-ordered psychiatric examination to determine their competency to stand trial. If the defendant raises the insanity issue, they may not refuse to be examined by a psychiatrist appointed to aid the court in the resolution of his insanity plea.
Post-Acquittal Commitment to Mental Institution
In most jurisdictions, a defendant acquitted by reason of insanity may be committed to a mental institution until cured. Confinement may exceed the maximum period of incarceration for the offense charged.
Mental Condition During Criminal Proceedings
Under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, a defendant may not be tried, convicted, or sentenced if, as a result
of a mental disease or defect, they are unable
(1) to understand the nature of the proceedings being brought against them; or
(2) to assist their lawyer in the preparation of their defense.
A defendant may not be executed if they are incapable of understanding the nature and purpose of the punishment.
Diminished Capacity
Some states recognize the defense of “diminished capacity” under which the defendant may assert that as a result of a mental defect short of insanity, they did not have the mental state required for the crime charged.
Most states allowing the diminished capacity defense limit it to specific intent crimes, but a few states allow it for general intent crimes as well.
INTOXICATION
Intoxication may be caused by any substance (for example, drugs, alcohol, medicine).
It may be raised whenever intoxication negates one of the elements of the crime.
The law usually distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
Voluntary Intoxication
Intoxication is voluntary if it is the result of the intentional taking without duress of a substance known to be intoxicating.
Defense to SPECIFIC INTENT Crimes:
Evidence of “voluntary” intoxication may be offered by the D only if the crime requires purpose (intent) or knowledge, and the intoxication prevented the defendant from formulating the purpose or obtaining the knowledge.
Thus, voluntary intoxication may be a good defense to specific intent crimes,
but NOT to general intent, malice, or strict liability crime (for example, voluntary intoxication will be a good defense to first degree (premeditated) murder, but not second degree murder, because it includes common law (malice) murder).
RECKLESSNESS? For crimes that require recklessness (that is, conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk), a person who would have been aware of the risk had he not been intoxicated acts recklessly with regard to the risk.
Additionally, the defense is not available if the defendant purposely becomes intoxi- cated in order to establish the defense.
addicts and alcoholics who are intox- icated when they commit a crime are considered to be voluntarily intoxicated rather than involuntarily intoxicated.
Involuntary Intoxication
Intoxication is involuntary only if it results from the taking of an intoxicating substance without knowledge of its nature, under direct duress imposed by another, or pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the substance’s intoxicating effect.
Involuntary intoxication may be treated as a mental illness, and the defendant is entitled to acquittal if they meet the jurisdiction’s insanity test.
Thus, involuntary intoxication can be a defense to all crimes.
Relationship to Insanity
Continuous, excessive drinking or drug use may bring on actual insanity and thus a defendant may be able to claim both an intoxication defense and an insanity defense.
Infancy
Infancy (COMMON LAW):
Under age of 7 = no criminal liability
Age 7-14 = REBUTTABLE presumption child unable understand wrongfulness of acts
Age 14 and older = treated as adult
At common law, there could be no liability for an act committed by a child under age seven.
For acts committed by a child between ages seven and 14, there was a rebuttable presumption that the child was unable to understand the wrongfulness of their acts.
Children age 14 or older were treated as adults.
MODERN: Modern statutes often modify this and provide that no child can be convicted of a crime until a stated age is reached, usually 13 or 14. However, children can be found to be delinquent in special juvenile or family courts.
Defense: Insanity
Elements:
Applicable crimes:
Defense: Insanity
Elements: Meet applicable insanity test (m’Naghten, irrestible impulse, Durham, or MPC).
Applicable crimes: Defense ot all crimes.
Defense: Intoxication (VOLUNTARY)
Elements:
Applicable crimes:
Defense: Intoxication (VOLUNTARY)
Elements: Voluntarily, intentional taking of a substance known to be intoxicating.
Applicable crimes: Defense to SPECIFIC INTENT crime if intoxication prevents formation of required intent.
Defense: Intoxication (INVOLUNTARY)
Elements:
Applicable crimes:
Defense: Intoxication (INVOLUNTARY)
Elements: Taking intoxicating substance without knowledge of its nature, under duress, or pursuant to medical
Applicable crimes: Treated as mental illness (Apply appropriate insanity test); May be a defense to ALL crimes.
Defense: Infancy
Elements:
Applicable crimes:
Defense: Infancy
Elements: D under age 14 at common law; under modern statutes, D under age 13 or 14.
Applicable crimes:
Common law; under age 7, absolute defense to ALL crimes. Under age 14, rebuttable presumption of defense.
Modern statutes: Defense to adult crimes but may still be delinquent.
Defense: Diminished capacity
Elements:
Applicable crimes:
Defense: Diminished capacity
Elements: As a result of mental defect short of insanity, D did not have the required mental state to commit the crime.
Applicable crimes: Most states with this defense limit to specific intent crimes.
SELF-DEFENSE AND OTHER JUSTIFICATION DEFENSES
The justification defenses arise when society has deemed that although the defendant committed a proscribed act, they should not be punished because the circumstances justify the action.
The right to self-defense or other justification defenses depends on the immediacy of the threat; a threat of future harm is not sufficient.
Thus, if someone threatens the defendant by saying, “Tomorrow I’m going to kill you,” the defendant is not justified in killing the person to “protect” themself.
It is crucial to determine the level of force that the defen- dant used in committing the proscribed act.
As a rule of thumb, nondeadly force is justified where it appears necessary to avoid imminent injury or to retain property;
deadly force is justified only to prevent death or serious bodily injury.
Nondeadly Force
A person without fault may use such force as the person reasonably believes is necessary to protect themself from the imminent use of unlawful force upon themself.
There is NO duty to retreat.
