CL Defenses Flashcards
Types of Defenses
- Failure of proof defenses
- justification: you did something wrong but we agree, so no punishment (self-defense)
- excuse: You did something wrong, but we can’t reasonably punish you, usually negates elements (insanity)
- specialized defenses
Self Defense
1) Non-aggressor
2) Necessary
3) Reasonable belief
4) Imminence
5) proportional
Agressor
can be:
1) initiation, or
2) escalation from words alone,
3) showing a weapon
- split on whether words alone can render a person an aggressor
When is deadly force justified in self-defense?
when presented with imminent and unlawful deadly threat
Duty to retreat
Majority: no duty to retreat, stand your ground
Minority: Self-defense is a matter of strict necessity, thus the use of deadly force is not allowed if there is a safe way to retreat. (Factual inquiry)
-for minority jurisdictions, retreat only necessary if outside your home
Castle Doctrine
non-aggressor is not ordinarily required to retreat in their own house
Imperfect Self Defense
Self-defense usually complete defense. If not reasonable belief or force not proportional, imperfect self-defense takes murder charge down to manslaughter.
Aggressor regain right of self defense if they
1) Withdraw from conflict in good faith, AND
2) Fairly communicate that fact (express or implied) to another
US v. Peterson
Guy came to steal windshield wipers, home owner started fight, got gun, and told them they couldn’t leave. Agressors don’t have right of self defense even in own home.
If non-deadly aggressor is met with deadly response, can they regain right of self defense?
Yes
Differences between MPC and CL self defefense.
MPC:
(1) expands “imminence” requirement ( use force ‘he believes that force is immediately necessary to protect himself’);
(2) focus on subjectivity.
State v. Norman
Man prostituted and abused wife. She killed him in his sleep with mother-in-law’s gun. Evidence of battered-wife syndrome will not absolutely justify a killing unless the defendant believed the killing was necessary in order to avoid imminent death or great bodily harm.
C/L Defense of Others
2 approaches:
1) majority: An intervenor may use force to the extent that such force reasonably appears to the intervenor to be justified in defense of the third party.
2) “step in the shoes” The person could use force to defend a third party only if that third party would have been justified in using force (and the same degree of force) in self-defense. 3rd party must have been justified in a self-defense claim had they acted.
State v. Boyett
Guy shot fiance’s lesbian lover when she came to drop off car keys. the defense of habitation does not require an intruder to physically enter a home before the owner may use deadly force necessary to prevent the commission of a felony inside the home. No defense of habitation here
C/L Defense of Property
Deadly force is never allowed to protect personal property.
A person may use nondeadly force, but no more than necessary, to defend their possessory interest in property.
BUT: If an attempt to steal property turns into a situation in which the possessor is confronted by deadly force, then the self-defense rules apply: the possessor has the privilege of self-defense.
C/L Defense of Home Old CL
A home dweller can use deadly force on another person if she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an imminent and unlawful entry of her dwelling
C/L Defense of Home Modern Approach
A person may use deadly force to defend her home if she reasonably believes that: (1) the other person intends an unlawful and imminent entry of the dwelling; (2) the intruder intends to injure her or another occupant or to commit a felony therein; and (3) deadly force is necessary to repel the intrusion.
C/L Defense narrow approach
A person is justified in using deadly force on another if she reasonably believes that: (1) the other person intends an unlawful and imminent entry; (2) the intruder intends to commit a forcible felony therein (murder, robbery, burglary, rape, arson); and (3) such force is necessary to prevent the intrusion.
C/L Necessity
Actor faced with a clear & imminent danger must expect that the action will be effective in abating the danger sought to be avoided (direct causal relationship between the action and the harm to be averted).
There must be o effective legal way to avoid the harm and the harm the actor will cause by breaking the law must be less serious than the harm sought to be avoided.
(1) Weigh against the harm reasonably foreseeable at the time, rather than the harm that actually occurs.
(2) Given the facts as they reasonably appear, was the defendant’s value judgment correct? (Fact-finder question).
Lawmakers should not have anticipated this choice of evils and determined the balance to be struck.
Actor must have “clean hands”—should not have substantially contributed to the emergency or put herself in a situation where she would be forced to engage in criminal conduct.
Nelson v. State
Nelson v. State (Alaska 1979)
Facts: Guy got his truck stuck in the mud, and stole equipment and it got stuck in the mud. The commission of a crime is justifiable if it is necessary to prevent a greater harm from occurring. No necessity in this case
Duress
A defendant will be acquitted of any offense except murder if the criminal act was committed under the following circumstances:
(1) Another person threatened to kill or grievously injure the actor or a third party, particularly a close relative, unless the defendant committed the offense;
(2) The defendant reasonably believed that the threat was genuine;
(3) The threat was present, imminent, and impending at the time of the criminal act;
(4) There was no reasonable escape from the threat except through compliance with the coercer’s demands; and
(5) The defendant was not at fault for exposing herself to the threat.
Imperfect Duress
If elements of duress met, it takes murder down to manslaughter in some jurisdictions
Limitations to Necessity
Limitations:
1) Limited to natural emergencies v. human forces
2) limited to protecting persons and property, not reputational or economic interests
3) Actor must believe the action is necessary
US v. Schoon
Protest at IRS office. Necessity is unavailable in this civil disobedience case. The necessity defense requires a defendant to show that he was faced with a choice between two related evils, that he acted to prevent imminent harm, and there was no legal alternative to violating the law.
