Chapter 5: Criminal Defenses Flashcards
Factual defense
Someone employing a factual defense is simply claiming that he or she did not commit the crime.
Legal defense
A legal defense asserts that there is a legal reason to not hold someone criminally responsible for a crime.
Justifications
When the accused admits to committing the act but makes a claim that it was necessary to do so in order to avoid some greater evil.
Excuses
When the accused makes a claim that due to some personal circumstance or condition at the time of the act he / she should not be held criminally responsible.
Affirmative defense
A response to a criminal charge where the accused puts forth their own evidence claiming why they should not be held criminally liable for their actions.
Common types of justification defenses
Necessity Self-defense Defense of others Defense of home and property Consent
Necessity
The defense of necessity asserts that to avoid or prevent a great harm, it was necessary to commit an act that was unlawful.
Reasonable person
Someone with common sense, someone who acts with a level of caution that a normally prudent person would, someone who possesses the average mental capacity of normal human being.
Apparent danger
A form of danger that is imminent when the action or behavior of an aggressor makes the threat of harm or danger obvious.
Imminent danger
Danger that is obvious, present and immediate.
Execution of public duty defense
A legal defense to a charge of criminal conduct, for example an assault, that is legislated and that prevents sworn law enforcement personnel, such as police officers and other public officials from being held criminally responsible for the lawful execution of their duties.
Defense of property can include
- The protection of one’s personal property
- The defense of one’s home or dwelling
- The defense of another person’s property
- The use of a mechanical device to protect one’s property
Consent defense
The defense of consent asserts that someone claiming an injury either had agreed to sustaining the injury in question or understood and accepted the possibility of sustaining injury prior to the injurious activity that was undertaken.
Excuse defense
An excuse defense admits that the behavior committed by the accused was wrong and unlawful while asserting that they should be excused from criminal responsibility due to some type of special circumstance or condition.
Common types of excuse defenses include
Duress Intoxication Mistake Age Entrapment Mental incompetence
Duress
A circumstance where a person is forced to act against their own will, also referred to as compulsion
Two types of intoxication
Voluntary intoxication: voluntary and willful intoxication by ingestion, injection or some other method of intoxicating substances
Involuntary intoxication: intoxication that is not voluntary or willful
Mistake of fact
A misunderstanding, misinterpretation or forgetting about a fact that relates to a particular situation or a belief that something or some condition exists when it does not.
Ignorance of fact
A lack of knowledge of a fact that relates to a particular situation.
Mistake of law
A misinterpretation or a misunderstanding of the law as it relates to a particular circumstance.
Ignorance of the law
A absence of knowledge about the law or of the presence of a law as it relates to a particular situation.
Culpable ignorance
When a person fails to use normal or odinary care to attain knowledge of the law they may be held criminally responsible.
Age
Defenses based on age are often referred to as immaturity or infancy defense
Entrapment
The foundation of the defense of entrapment asserts that if it had not been for the actions on the part of the government, there would have been no crime committed.
Subjective test
Examines the characteristics of the defendant to determine if the accused was predisposed to the behavior / commission of the crime.
Objective test
Examines the behavior of law enforcement to determine if the actions were extreme and / or outrageous.
Mental incompetence
Criminal defenses based on a lack of mental competence can be divided into two categories: competency and sanity.
Difference between the decision of competence vs. the decision of insanity
It is important to note that insanity is a matter that is decided by a jury as opposed to competence, which is decided by the court.
Four different instances in which insanity is argued
- At the time of the crime
- At the time of the trial (incompetency)
- During incarceration
- Just prior to execution
According to the video about the 6th Amendment, which case extended the right to an attorney to those accused of committing state crimes?
Gideon vs Wainwright
According to the alibi video, the Latin translation of the word “alibi” means:
Somewhere else
In the Queen vs Dudley/Stephens video, what case in the United States did the British courts look to for comparison?
U.S. vs Holmes
According to the video on competency to stand trial the two prong test to determine someone’s competency to stand trial (Dusky vs. U.S.) includes: (choose two)
a sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding
According to the video on insanity defenses, which of the following is NOT one of the rules / tests?
Competency Rule
According to the video on insanity defense myth busting, the insanity defense is used in what percentage of felony cases?
1%
