Criminal defenses Flashcards
Insanity tests
M’Naghten - D’s lack of understanding of the wrongfulness of his conduct (cognitive prong);
Irresistible impulse - D’s inability to control his conduct (volitional prong);
Durham - encompasses both M’Naghten and I.I. tests, and possibly other situations
MPC - 1) D lacks substantial capacity to “appreciate the criminality” of his conduct; and 2) Inability to control conduct. (essentially covering both M’Naghten and I.I. tests). NOTE: psychopaths/sociopaths (anti-social conduct) are NOT grounds for insanity.
Federal insanity statute (Insanity Defense Reform Act, 1984, in response to John Hinkley’s acquittal for attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan): Drastically narrows insanity defense in federal criminal cases essentially to M’Naghten proportions (lacks understanding of wrongfulness); BURDEN of persuasion is placed on D. (NOTE: Durham NEVER accepted)
Requirements of Duress
- A threat by a third person (threat);
- which produces a reasonable fear in D (fear);
- that he will suffer immediate/imminent (imminent danger);
- death or serious bodily injury (bodily harm)
Requirements of Necessity defense
- Reasonable belief of imminent danger and
- Abatement ability (will be successful)
- Legal alternative lacking
- Foreseeable harm < Avoided harm
- Statutory carve out (not)
- Clean hands
- Greater harm
- No alternative
- Imminence
- Situation not caused by D
- Nature of harm < Avoided harm (generally not required to be serious bodily harm, could be property damage)
Requirements of Self Defense defense
- Resist unlawful force (under present or imminent)
- Force must not be excessive
- Deadly force (may not use)
- Aggressor (D must not be aggressor)
- Retreat (duty to retreat)
Fitness to stand trial
- Sufficient present ability to
- Consult with lawyer with
- Reasonable degree of rational understanding
- Rational and factual understanding of proceedings against him
Insanity formulations
- M’Naghten Rule
- Irresistible impulse test
- Model Penal Code test
- Durham test
M’Naghten test
Irresistible impulse test
MPC test
Durham test
- Didn’t know nature and quality
- The act he did was wrong
- Lacked substantial capacity for self control OR
- Ability to control actions
- Appreciate the legal or moral wrongfulness of his act OR
- Conform his conduct to the requirements of the law
- D had mental illness when committed
- Illness caused the unlawful act (but-for causation)
Intoxication definition
- A disturbance of
- Mental or physical capacities
- Resulting from introduction of ANY substance into the body
Intoxication defense application
- Voluntary or involuntary?
- How does D claim intoxication affected culpability?
- What type of crime is negated (VI only SI)?
Necessity
- Reasonable belief of imminent natural danger (MPC ≠ imminent, natural)
- Abate (action will not abate) danger
- Legal (no legal way to abate)
- Less less serious (foreseeable harm was) than harm avoided
- Statute does not invalidate
- Clean hands by D (MPC ≠ CH requirement)
Duress
D is entitled to acquittal if:
- Threat to kill or injure D or 3P unless D commits offense
- Genuine threat (reasonable belief of)
- Imminent, present, impending threat
- Escape NOT available except through compliance w/ coercer
- Fault - D not at fault in exposing himself to the threat
Types of impossibility defense
- Factual - circumstances prevented commission
- Legal - conduct was not criminal
- Inherent - was impossible to commit
Impossibility generally not a defense to attempt.
Mistake of fact at CL is evaluated for:
Reasonableness
Entrapment - test used by majority and minority of jurisdictions
Majority - Subjective-predisposition test: A government induces a person to commit a crime that the person was not predisposed to commit.
Minority - Objective-police-conduct rule: Police methods create a substantial risk that the crime will be committed by individuals other than those who are ready to do so.
