Criminal Law AMP - Defenses

Question 1

What factors must be present in order to justify a person’s use of deadly force to defend herself?

A The person must be without fault, reasonably believe that she is being threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm, and have attempted to retreat

B The person must be without fault, be confronted with unlawful force, and reasonably believe that she is being threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm

C The person must be without fault, confronted with unlawful force, and have attempted to retreat

D The person must be confronted with unlawful force, reasonably believe that she is being threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm, and have attempted to retreat

Answer 1

B

A person may use deadly force to defend herself when she is without fault, she is confronted with unlawful force, and she reasonably believes that she is being threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm. The majority rule is that a person need not attempt to retreat before using deadly force when the above conditions are met. The majority of courts hold that there is no duty to retreat under the circumstances above. Hence, a person (other than the initial aggressor) may use deadly force in self-defense even if this could be avoided by retreating. QUESTION ID: C0014A Additional Learning

Question 2

Legal impossibility arises when the defendant _______; factual impossibility arises when the defendant _______.

A Attempts to do an act that is not criminal; attempts to do an act that cannot be completed due to some fact that is unknown to the defendant

B Cannot be held criminally liable for an act due to a statutory intent to exclude the defendant from punishment; cannot complete the crime for whatever reason

C Cannot complete the crime for whatever reason; cannot be held criminally liable for an act due to a statutory intent to exclude the defendant from punishment

D Attempts to do an act that cannot be completed due to some fact that is unknown to the defendant; attempts to do an act that is not criminal

Answer 2

A

True legal impossibility arises only when the defendant did, or intended to do, an act that would not constitute a crime under any circumstances. Factual impossibility arises when it is impossible, for some reason unknown to the defendant, for the defendant to do all of those things that he intended to do to complete his plan. QUESTION ID: C0034B Additional Learning

Question 3

Which of the following, if true, would destroy an entrapment defense?

A The defendant was induced to commit the crime by a private citizen.

B The criminal design originated with law enforcement officers.

C The defendant was induced to commit the crime by a law enforcement officer.

D The defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime.

Answer 3

A

If the defendant was induced to commit the crime by a private citizen, he cannot claim that he was entrapped. To claim entrapment, the criminal design must originate with law enforcement officers (or an agent of the officer). A private citizen acting alone cannot entrap a defendant. Entrapment consists of two elements. The criminal design must have originated with law enforcement officers; andThe defendant must not have been predisposed to commit the crime prior to the initial contact by the government. The defendant must be induced to commit the crime by a law enforcement officer to have a valid entrapment defense. If he was predisposed to commit the crime prior to the officer’s initial contact, it will not be considered entrapment. QUESTION ID: C0008 Additional Learning

Question 4

The necessity defense can succeed when the defendant’s belief in the need to commit a criminal act in order to avoid a greater harm is:

A Reasonable or unreasonable; belief is irrelevant

B Reasonable; an unreasonable belief cannot succeed

C In good faith

Answer 4

B

The defense of necessity may be available when a defendant reasonably believes he must commit otherwise criminal conduct to avoid some harm to society caused by natural forces that would exceed the harm caused by his conduct. The test is objective; a good faith belief in the necessity of one’s conduct is insufficient. QUESTION ID: C0018B Additional Learning

Question 5

In most jurisdictions, deadly force may not be used in:

A Defense of personal property, crime prevention, or defense of others

B Defense of personal property or crime prevention

C Defense of personal property

D Crime prevention

Answer 5

C

Deadly force may not be used in defense of personal property. Deadly force may be used in defense of others in situations where a person reasonably believed that the person she assisted had the legal right to use force in his own defense. Deadly force may be used in crime prevention to prevent the commission of a dangerous felony involving risk to human life. QUESTION ID: C0015A Additional Learning

Question 6

Which of the following statements is true regarding the insanity defense?

A The prosecution initially bears the burden to prove that a defendant is sane.

B The prosecutor or judge may raise the defense on behalf of any defendant.

C The burden of persuasion on the insanity issue may be placed on the defendant.

D If a defendant pleads not guilty at his arraignment, he waives the right to raise the defense at a later time.

Answer 6

C

Once the issue of sanity is raised, the burden of persuasion may be placed on the defendant, with the legal standard being either “by a preponderance of the evidence” or “by clear and convincing evidence.” If a defendant pleads not guilty at his arraignment, he does NOT waive the right to raise the defense at a later time. However, in a minority of jurisdictions, the defendant must give reasonable notice to the prosecution of an intent to raise the defense at trial. The prosecution does NOT initially bear the burden to prove that a defendant is sane. All defendants are presumed sane until the defense enters an insanity plea, at which time the defendant must come forward with some evidence tending to show his insanity. The prosecutor or judge may NOT raise the defense on behalf of any defendant. If a competent defendant is adequately represented, only he may raise the defense of insanity. QUESTION ID: C0003 Additional Learning

Question 7

Which of the following is true regarding the defense of entrapment:

A The defendant may have been predisposed to commit the crime before the initial contact by the government

B The criminal design must have originated with law enforcement

C It is sufficient for the defense that law enforcement officers provided the defendant with an opportunity to commit the crime

Answer 7

B

The defense of entrapment consists of two elements: (i) the criminal design must have originated with law enforcement officers; and (ii) the defendant must not have been predisposed to commit the crime prior to the initial contact by the government. An entrapment defense will fail if the government merely provides the defendant with the opportunity to commit the crime. QUESTION ID: C0019A Additional Learning

Question 8

Which of the following is available as a defense to specific intent crimes but not general intent crimes?

A Voluntary intoxication

B Mistake of fact

C Involuntary intoxication

D Insanity

Answer 8

A

Voluntary intoxication is available as a defense to a specific intent crime only. The defense may be used to show that a defendant was unable to form the requisite intent due to intoxication. Involuntary intoxication and insanity are available as defenses to both specific intent and general intent crimes. Mistake of fact is available as a defense to both specific intent and general intent crimes. However, note that a mistake of fact must be reasonable to be a defense to a general intent crime. An unreasonable mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime only. QUESTION ID: C0012 Additional Learning

Question 9

At common law, the defense of duress is available when:

A The defendant commits a crime to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or a third person.

B The defendant commits a crime to prevent some other harm to society that would exceed the harm caused by committing the crime.

C The defendant commits a crime to prevent harm to a dwelling.

D The defendant is accused of any crime.

Answer 9

A

At common law, duress is available if the defendant commits a crime to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or a third person. A defendant may commit an otherwise criminal act (other than intentional homicide), provided that he believes that death or great bodily harm will be inflicted if he does not commit the crime. At common law, duress is not available as a defense to any crime; it is not a defense to intentional homicide. At common law, duress is not available as a defense if the defendant commits a crime to prevent harm to a dwelling. The threat of harm must be to the defendant himself or to a third person. When a defendant commits a crime to prevent a greater harm than that caused by committing a crime, the available defense is necessity. Duress excuses a crime committed under threats by a person. QUESTION ID: C0004 Additional Learning

Question 10

In which of the following situations would an entrapment defense fail?

A Law enforcement officers induced the defendant to commit the crime

B The defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime

C The criminal design originated with law enforcement officers

D A private citizen induced the defendant to commit the crime

Answer 10

D

If the defendant was induced to commit the crime by a private citizen, he cannot claim that he was entrapped. To claim entrapment, the criminal design must originate with law enforcement officers (or an agent of the officer). A private citizen acting alone cannot entrap a defendant. Entrapment consists of two elements: 1. The criminal design must have originated with law enforcement officers; and2. The defendant must not have been predisposed to commit the crime prior to the initial contact by the government. The defendant must be induced to commit the crime by a law enforcement officer to have a valid entrapment defense. If he was predisposed to commit the crime prior to the officer’s initial contact, it will not be considered entrapment. QUESTION ID: C0008A Additional Learning

Question 11

__________ is a defense to specific intent, but not general intent, crimes.

A Voluntary intoxication

B Insanity

C Involuntary intoxication

D Mistake of fact

Answer 11

A

Voluntary intoxication is available as a defense to a specific intent crime only. The defense may be used to show that a defendant was unable to form the requisite intent due to intoxication. Involuntary intoxication and insanity are available as defenses to both specific intent and general intent crimes. Mistake of fact is available as a defense to both specific intent and general intent crimes. However, note that a mistake of fact must be reasonable to be a defense to a general intent crime. An unreasonable mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime only. QUESTION ID: C0012A Additional Learning

Question 12

A defendant is __________ to stand trial if he __________.

A Unfit; cannot understand the nature of the proceedings against him

B Fit; cannot understand the nature of the proceedings against him, but can assist his lawyer in the preparation of his defense

C Unfit; was insane at the time of his offense

D Fit; can understand the nature of the proceedings against him, but cannot assist his lawyer in the preparation of his defense

Answer 12

A

A defendant is unfit to stand trial if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings being brought against him or assist his lawyer in the preparation of his defense. It is sufficient that the defendant be incapable of either of these elements in order to be found incompetent to stand trial; it is not necessary that he is incapable of both. Whether the defendant was insane at the time of the offense is a separate question from whether he is fit to stand trial. QUESTION ID: C0007C Additional Learning

Question 13

At common law, the defense of duress __________ available when the defendant has committed __________.

A Is not; a battery to prevent harm to himself

B Is; an intentional homicide

C Is not; an intentional homicide

D Is; a crime to prevent harm to his dwelling

Answer 13

C

At common law, duress is available if the defendant commits a crime other than intentional homicide in order to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or a third person. A defendant may commit an otherwise criminal act such as battery if he believes that death or great bodily harm will be inflicted if he does not commit the crime. At common law, duress is not a defense to intentional homicide. At common law, duress is not available as a defense if the defendant commits a crime to prevent harm to a dwelling. The threat of harm must be to the defendant himself or to a third person. QUESTION ID: C0004B Additional Learning

Question 14

If a defendant reasonably believes he must engage in criminal behavior to avoid some harm to society caused by natural forces that would exceed the harm caused by his conduct, the defense of __________ may be available.

A coercion

B necessity

C exigent circumstances

D duress

Answer 14

B

The defense of necessity may be available when a defendant reasonably believes he must commit otherwise criminal conduct to avoid some harm to society caused by natural forces that would exceed the harm caused by his conduct. The test is objective; a good faith belief in the necessity of one’s conduct is insufficient. The defense of duress always involves a human threat. Coercion is another name for duress. Exigent circumstances is not, by itself, a defense to a crime. QUESTION ID: C0018 Additional Learning

Question 15

Is voluntary intoxication ever a defense to crime?

A No

B Yes, to general intent crimes

C Yes, to malice crimes

D Yes, to specific intent crimes

Answer 15

D

Voluntary (self-induced) intoxication is a defense only to specific intent crimes when it negates the purpose (intent) or knowledge required by the crime. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to common law malice crimes or crimes requiring a reckless or negligent state of mind (i.e., general intent crimes). QUESTION ID: C0009A Additional Learning

Question 16

Deadly force is generally appropriate to defend against a violent entry into a dwelling if:

A A person in the dwelling reasonably believes that the person entering intends to commit a crime of any kind therein

B A person in the dwelling reasonably believes that she is in danger of harm

C A person in the dwelling is protecting personal property therein

Answer 16

B

It is appropriate to use deadly force when entry was made or attempted in a riotous, violent, or tumultuous manner, and the person using deadly force reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent a personal attack upon himself or another in the dwelling. Both of these elements must be true for the use of deadly force to be justified. For deadly force to be a valid defense in crime prevention, the crime being committed must be a felony. The modern view would require that the felony be a dangerous one. Generally, deadly force cannot be used to defend one’s personal property just because it is in a dwelling (but another privilege such as self-defense, etc., might authorize the use of deadly force if the person was threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm). QUESTION ID: C0006B Additional Learning

Question 17

In most states, voluntary intoxication is a defense to:

A All crimes that require a mens rea

B General intent crimes

C Malice crimes

D Specific intent crimes

Answer 17

D

Voluntary (self-induced) intoxication is a defense only to specific intent crimes when it negates the purpose (intent) or knowledge required by the crime. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to common law malice crimes or crimes requiring a reckless or negligent state of mind (i.e., general intent crimes). QUESTION ID: C0009 Additional Learning

Question 18

The defendant may successfully assert the defense of entrapment:

A If a law enforcement officer merely offers the opportunity to commit the crime.

B If the criminal design originated with law enforcement officers.

C If the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime prior to the initial contact by the government.

D If a defendant is induced to commit a crime solely by a private party.

Answer 18

B

The defense of entrapment requires that the criminal design originate with law enforcement officers. The defendant must not have been predisposed to commit the crime prior to the initial contact by the government to have a successful entrapment defense. For the defense of entrapment to be successful, a law enforcement officer cannot merely offer the opportunity to commit the crime; there must be some inducement by the government. A person cannot be entrapped by a private person. Inducement constitutes entrapment only if performed by a government officer. QUESTION ID: C0019 Additional Learning

Question 19

Voluntary intoxication is a defense to:

A Specific intent crimes only

B Both specific and general intent crimes

C General intent crimes only

Answer 19

A

Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific intent crimes only. The defense may be used to show that a defendant was unable to form the requisite intent due to intoxication. QUESTION ID: C0012B Additional Learning

Question 20

In which of the following situations would the defendant have a valid defense to attempt in most jurisdictions?

A The acts he was attempting to commit would not constitute a crime under any set of circumstances

B It would be impossible for the defendant to commit all the acts he intended to commit to complete the crime

C The defendant has committed an act beyond mere preparation in an attempt to commit the crime, but then abandons her plan because she believes the police are about to arrest her

Answer 20

A

The defendant would have a valid defense to attempt if the acts he was attempting to commit would not constitute a crime under any circumstances. This is legal impossibility, which is a valid defense to attempt in most jurisdictions. The defendant would not have a valid defense to attempt if it would be impossible for him to commit all the acts he intended to commit to complete the crime. This describes factual impossibility, which is not a valid defense to attempt. Abandonment is also not a valid defense to attempt. (However, under the Model Penal Code, withdrawal will be a defense if it is fully voluntary and not made because of the difficulty of completing the crime or because of an increased risk of apprehension, and it is a complete abandonment of the plan made under circumstances manifesting a renunciation of criminal purpose, not just a decision to postpone committing it or to find another victim.) QUESTION ID: C0034A Additional Learning

Question 21

In which of the following situations does an initial aggressor have the right to use self-defense?

A If the victim of the initial aggression escalates a minor altercation into a deadly altercation.

B If the victim of the initial aggression fails to withdraw when he could safely do so.

C If the initial aggressor becomes injured in the altercation.

D If the victim uses force to defend himself.

Answer 21

A

If the victim of the initial aggression escalates a minor altercation into a deadly altercation, the aggressor has the right to use self-defense. Note that the aggressor may also use self-defense if he, in good faith, effectively removes himself from the fight, and communicates to the other person his desire to remove himself. Being injured in the altercation does not give the aggressor the right to use self-defense. If the victim uses force to defend himself, and it does not escalate the fight into a deadly altercation, the aggressor does not have the right to use self-defense. A person confronted with nondeadly force may use such force as he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself. There is no requirement to retreat before using nondeadly force, and one does not become “at fault” for failing to do so. QUESTION ID: C0005 Additional Learning

Question 22

In most jurisdictions, deadly force __________ be used in defense of __________.

A May not; personal property or self

B May; personal property

C May not; others

D May; self or others

Answer 22

D

Deadly force may be used in self-defense if the actor (i) is without fault, (ii) is confronted with unlawful force, and (iii) reasonably believes that she is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm. Deadly force may be used in defense of others in situations where a person reasonably believed that the person she assisted had the legal right to use force in his own defense. Deadly force may not be used in defense of personal property. QUESTION ID: C0015B Additional Learning

Question 23

A defendant __________ succeed on an entrapment defense if ___________ initially came up with the criminal scheme.

A Cannot; law enforcement officers

B May; a private citizen

C May; law enforcement officers

Answer 23

C

A defendant may succeed in an entrapment defense if the criminal scheme was the idea of law enforcement officers. Entrapment consists of two elements: 1. The criminal design must have originated with law enforcement officers; and2. The defendant must not have been predisposed to commit the crime prior to the initial contact by the government. If the defendant was induced to commit the crime by a private citizen, he cannot claim that he was entrapped. To claim entrapment, the criminal design must originate with law enforcement officers (or an agent of the officer). A private citizen acting alone cannot entrap a defendant. QUESTION ID: C0008C Additional Learning

Question 24

Under the M’Naghten Rule, a defendant is insane if he:

A Lacks the ability to know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions

B Suffers from delusions

C Believes that criminal actions are morally correct

D Cannot control his physical actions

Answer 24

A

The M’Naghten Rule requires proof that the defendant: (i) Have a disease of the mind, (ii) That caused a defect of reason, (iii) Such that he lacked the ability at the time of his actions to either know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions. The defendant suffering from delusions, believing his actions are morally right, or being unable to control himself are not elements of the M’Naghten test. QUESTION ID: C0017A Additional Learning

Question 25

Which of the following is an appropriate use of deadly force?

A When one is resisting an unlawful arrest by a known police officer.

B When one is attempting to prevent any crime.

C When entry into a dwelling is made or attempted in a riotous, violent, or tumultuous manner, and the person using deadly force reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent a personal attack upon himself or another in the dwelling.

D When one is defending her own personal property.

Answer 25

C

It is appropriate to use deadly force when entry was made or attempted in a riotous, violent, or tumultuous manner, and the person using deadly force reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent a personal attack upon himself or another in the dwelling. Both of these elements must be true for the use of deadly force to be justified. For deadly force to be a valid use of force in crime prevention, the crime being committed must be a felony. The modern view would require that the felony be a dangerous one. Generally, deadly force cannot be used to defend one’s personal property (but another privilege such as self-defense, etc., might authorize the use of deadly force if the person was threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm). Generally, only nondeadly force may be used to resist a known police officer. QUESTION ID: C0006 Additional Learning

Question 26

Which of the following would be a defense to felony murder?

A The underlying felony was committed under duress.

B The statute of limitations for the underlying felony has expired.

C The felon did not intend to kill anyone.

D The underlying felony was never completed.

Answer 26

A

The fact that a felony was committed under duress is a defense to felony murder. If the defendant has a substantive defense to the underlying felony, he has a defense to felony murder. However, procedural defenses (such as the expiration of the statute of limitations for the underlying felony) would not be valid defenses. The prosecution generally must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a killing was committed while the defendant was committing a felony. It need not charge or convict the defendant of that felony. The death must be caused during the commission of the felony; the felony need not be completed. Accidental killings fall within the scope of felony murder. Malice is implied from the intent to commit a felony. QUESTION ID: C0058 Additional Learning

Question 27

An element of the M’Naghten Rule formulation of the insanity defense is that the defendant __________.

A believes that his actions are morally right

B has a disease of the mind

C is unable to control himself

D suffers from delusions

Answer 27

B

The defendant must have a disease of the mind to prove insanity under the M’Naghten Rule. The M’Naghten Rule requires proof that the defendant: (i) Have a disease of the mind, (ii) That caused a defect of reason, (iii) Such that he lacked the ability at the time of his actions to either know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions. The defendant suffering from delusions, believing his actions are morally right, or being unable to control himself are not elements of the M’Naghten test. QUESTION ID: C0017 Additional Learning

Question 28

Under the Model Penal Code test for the insanity defense, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if:

A He lacked the ability at the time of his actions to know the wrongfulness of his action.

B The proof establishes that his crime was the product of mental disease or defect.

C He lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

D The proof establishes that a disease of the mind caused a defect in reason such that the defendant lacked the ability at the time of the action to either know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions.

Answer 28

C

Under the Model Penal Code, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Thus, it essentially combines the cognitive test of M’Naghten and the volitional test of the irresistible impulse test (i.e., because of mental illness, the defendant was unable to control his actions or to conform his conduct to the law). Under the Durham rule, the defendant is entitled to acquittal if the proof establishes that his crime was the product of mental disease or defect. A crime is a product of the disease if it would not have been committed but for the disease. The M’Naghten test is a cognitive test that looks at the defendant’s ability to distinguish right from wrong. It requires a disease to cause a defect in the defendant’s reasoning such that he cannot know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions. QUESTION ID: C0002 Additional Learning

Question 29

Under the M’Naghten rule, a defendant is insane if he has a disease of the mind that caused a defect of reason such that he lacked the ability to _______ or _______.

A Know the wrongfulness of his actions; understand the nature and quality of his actions

B Know the wrongfulness of his actions; conform his conduct to the law

C Control his actions; conform his conduct to the law

D Understand the nature and quality of his actions; conform his conduct to the law

Answer 29

A

The M’Naghten rule provides that a defendant is entitled to an acquittal if the proof establishes that (i) a disease of the mind; (ii) caused a defect of reason; (iii) such that the defendant lacked the ability at the time of his actions to either know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions. Under the irresistible impulse test, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the proof establishes that, because of a mental illness, the defendant was unable to control his actions or to conform his conduct to the law. QUESTION ID: C0017B Additional Learning

Question 30

If the burden of persuasion for an insanity defense is on the defendant, the standard of proof will usually be either by _______ or _______.

A A “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard; by clear and convincing evidence

B A “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard; by a preponderance of the evidence

C A preponderance of the evidence; by clear and convincing evidence

Answer 30

C

Once the issue of insanity is raised, the burden of persuasion may be placed on the defendant, with the legal standard being either “by a preponderance of the evidence” or “by clear and convincing evidence.” QUESTION ID: C0003C Additional Learning

Question 31

A defendant is fit to stand trial if he can:

A Understand the nature of the proceedings against him

B Understand the nature of the proceedings against him and assist his lawyer in the preparation of his defense

C Assist his lawyer in the preparation of his defense

D Understand the nature of the proceedings against him or assist his lawyer in the preparation of his defense

Answer 31

B

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, he is unfit to stand trial. A defendant is not fit to stand trial unless he can both understand the nature of the proceedings being brought against him and assist his lawyer in the preparation of his defense. If the defendant is incapable of either of these elements he is incompetent to stand trial; it is not necessary that he is incapable of both. QUESTION ID: C0007B Additional Learning

Question 32

A person may use deadly force to defend herself when:

A She attempts to retreat, she is confronted with unlawful force, and she reasonably believes that she is being threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm.

B She is without fault, she attempts to retreat, and she reasonably believes that she is being threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm.

C She is without fault, she is confronted with unlawful force, and she reasonably believes that she is being threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm.

D She is without fault, she is confronted with unlawful force, and she attempts to retreat.

Answer 32

C

A person may use deadly force to defend herself when she is without fault, she is confronted with unlawful force, and she reasonably believes that she is being threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm. A person need not attempt to retreat before using deadly force when the above conditions are met. The majority of courts hold that there is no duty to retreat under the circumstances above. Hence, a person (other than the initial aggressor) may use deadly force in self-defense even if this could be avoided by retreating. QUESTION ID: C0014 Additional Learning

Question 33

Select the answer that best represents the Model Penal Code test for when a defendant raising insanity as a defense is entitled to an acquittal:

A When the proof establishes that a disease of the mind caused a defect in reason such that the defendant lacked the ability at the time of the action to either know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions

B When the proof establishes that his crime was the product of mental disease or defect

C When, as a result of a mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law

D When he lacked the ability at the time of his actions to know the wrongfulness of his action

Answer 33

C

Under the Model Penal Code, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if he suffered from a mental disease or defect and, as a result, lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Thus, it essentially combines the cognitive test of M’Naghten (see below) and the volitional test of the irresistible impulse test (i.e., because of mental illness, the defendant was unable to control his actions or to conform his conduct to the law). Under the Durham rule, the defendant is entitled to acquittal if the proof establishes that his crime was the product of mental disease or defect. A crime is a product of the disease if it would not have been committed but for the disease. The M’Naghten test is a cognitive test that looks at the defendant’s ability to distinguish right from wrong. It requires a disease to cause a defect in the defendant’s reasoning such that he cannot know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions. QUESTION ID: C0002A Additional Learning

Question 34

When is the duress defense available at common law?

A When the defendant commits a crime other than intentional homicide in order to prevent death or imminent bodily harm to himself or another

B When the defendant commits any crime in order to prevent death or imminent bodily harm to himself or another

C When the defendant commits a crime to prevent some other harm to society that would exceed the harm caused by committing the crime

D When the defendant commits a crime in order to prevent death or imminent bodily harm to himself, a third party, or a dwelling

Answer 34

A

At common law, duress is available if the defendant commits a crime other than intentional homicide in order to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or a third person. A defendant may commit an otherwise criminal act (other than intentional homicide), provided that he believes that death or great bodily harm will be inflicted if he does not commit the crime. At common law, duress is not a defense to intentional homicide; thus, the statement that “duress is a defense to any crime” is incorrect. At common law, duress is not available as a defense if the defendant commits a crime to prevent harm to a dwelling. The threat of harm must be to the defendant himself or to a third person. When a defendant commits a crime to prevent a greater harm than that caused by committing a crime, the available defense is necessity, not duress. Duress excuses a crime committed under threats by a person. QUESTION ID: C0004A Additional Learning