Crim Law - Defenses Flashcards
Capacity Defenses
(1) Insanity
(2) Voluntary Intoxication
(3) Infancy
INSANITY DEFENSE
The first requirement for the insanity defense is that the D must have a MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT
There are THREE common tests used to gauge whether the mental disease or defect renders the D legally insane:
The M’Naghten Test (MAJORITY TEST - purely cognitive)
D must prove that he either:
(1) did not know that his conduct was WRONG, or
(2) did not understand the NATURE of his conduct
The IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TEST (volitional test)
D must prove that he either:
(a) was unable to CONTROL his actions, or
(b) was unable to CONFORM his conduct to the law
MPC Test (used by roughly 25% of states - cognitive and volitional)
If D lacked the SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY to either:
(1) appreciate the criminality of his conduct, or
(2) conform his conduct to the requirements of law (volitional prong)
***NY TEST (cognitive test)
D must prove he or she lacked SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY to know or appreciate either
(a) the NATURE and CONSEQUENCES of his conduct or
(b) that his conduct was WRONG
INSANITY DEFENSE in NY**
Insanity test in NY*** (a cognitive approach)
D must prove he or she lacked SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY to know or appreciate either:
(a) the NATURE and CONSEQUENCES of his conduct, or
(b) that his conduct was WRONG
INCOMPETENCY (as distinguished from INSANITY)
Note: don’t confuse with INCOMPETENCY, which is the issue of whether, AT TIME OF TRIAL, D
(1) cannot understand the nature of proceedings or (2) assist his lawyer in preparation of his defense
- if either one is true, post-pone trial until D regains competency
VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION (Common Law)
CAPACITY DEFENSES
Common Law Approach:
(1) Can be a defense to a specific intent crime ONLY
(2) Cannot be a defense to malice, general intent, or strict liability crimes.
(3) The defense of intoxication requires such severe “prostration of the faculties” that the D cannot form the requisite specific intent (i.e. had to be really hammered)
in short, Defense against SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES ONLY
VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION under NY
CAPACITY DEFENSES
(1) Can be a defense to INTENT crimes and KNOWLEDGE crimes, if the intoxication prevents the D from forming the required state of mind
in short - Defense against INTENT and KNOWLEDGE crimes (can’t be for reckless, negligence, or strict liability)
INFANCY (common law)
Common law “Rule of Sevens”
(1) If, at the time of the crime, D’s age is less than 7, prosecution is NOT allowed
(2) If, at the time of the crime, D’s age is less than 14, there is a REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION against prosecution
(3) If, at the time of crime, the D is 14 or older, prosecution IS allowed
INFANCY defense in NY
(1) If D is under 13, criminal prosecution as an adult not allowed - only “juvenile delinquency” proceedings in Family Court
(2) if D 13 - Crim Prosecution allowed for 2nd degree murder
(3) if D 14 or 15 Crim Prosecution as adult allowed for serious crimes against persons or property
(4) if D is 16 or older - crim prosecution as adult for any crime.
MISTAKE of Fact (common law approach)
Common Law Approach: Whether a D’s mistake of fact will be a defense depends upon the mental state for the crime and whether the mistake was REASONABLE or unreasonable
if specific intent crime – ANY mistake of fact (even unreasonable) is defense
malice or general intent – only REASONABLE mistake of fact is defense
Strict liability – mistake of fact never a defense
REDUX: reasonable mistake is defense against all but strict liability, unreasonable mistake only defense against specific intent
MISTAKE of Fact: NY Rule
In NY, MISTAKE OF FACT will be a defense if the mistake negates the required mental state so..
(a) for crimes of INTENT, KNOWLEDGE or RECKLESSNESS, ANY mistake of fact (even unreasonable) is usually a defense
(b) crimes of NEGLIGENCE, only a reasonable mistake is defense
(c) strict liability, mistake of fact NEVER a defense, no matter how reasonable it is
MISTAKE OF LAW (common law and NY***)
The RULE: Mistake OF LAW is generally NOT a defense
EXCEPTION: If the statute specifically makes KNOWLEDGE of the law an element of the crime (e.g. “selling phony rolex watches KNOWING it is unlawful to do so”)
SELF DEFENSE: Use of Nondeadly Force
A D may use NONDEADLY force in self-defense if it is
(1) Reasonably necessary
(2) to protect against an immediate use
(3) of unlawful force against himself
common e.g.s - shoves and punches
Self-Defense: Use of DEADLY Force
A D may use deadly force in self-defense, if he is facing an IMMINENT THREAT OF DEATH or SERIOUS BODILY INJURY
but keep in mind
“INITIAL AGGRESSOR” RULE - A defendant may not use deadly force if he is the initial aggressor - that is, the person started the fight
——BUT initial aggressor can “REGAIN” right to use deadly force in self-defense if
(a) he WITHDRAWS from the fight AND COMMUNICATS that withdrawal to the other person; or
(b) the VICTIM suddenly ESCALATES a nondeadly fight into a deadly one
**NY DISTINCTION: In NY, initial aggressor must withdraw before using deadly force in self-defense, EVEN IF the other party suddenly escalates a non deadly fight into a deadly one
The “INITIAL AGGRESSOR” rule
SELF DEFENSE: Use of Deadly Force
A D may not use deadly force if he is the initial aggressor - that is, the person started the fight
BUT initial aggressor can “REGAIN” right to use deadly force in self-defense if
(a) he WITHDRAWS from the fight AND COMMUNICATS that withdrawal to the other person; or
(b) the VICTIM suddenly ESCALATES a nondeadly fight into a deadly one
**NY DISTINCTION: In NY, initial aggressor must withdraw before using deadly force in self-defense, EVEN IF the other party suddenly escalates a non deadly fight into a deadly one
The Retreat Rule
In some states, a D is required to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense
MAJORITY RULE: no retreat required
NY RULE (and minority): retreat is required unless
(i) D cannot retreat in complete safety, or
(ii) D is in his home (the “castle exception”)
