Criminal Responsibility Flashcards
Is intoxication a valid defense?
involuntary intox= valid defense to specific intent crimes IF intox prevents the formation of requires intent; but does NOT excuse D from general intent, malice, or SL crimes
Involuntary intoxication IS a valid defense to all crimes if the intoxication serves to negate an element of the crime.
Under involuntary intoxication defense, what else do you have to prove besides involuntariness?
the intoxication either prevented him from having the required mental state, or deprived him of the ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
What is required for defense of abandonment?
In order to successfully claim abandonment, the abandonment must be completely voluntary, and not made due to problems in completing the crime or the risk of getting caught; and it must represent a full renunciation of the criminal purpose.
Under modern statutes, there are generally three potential parties to a crime:
Principal. The principal is the person who commits the illegal act or who causes an innocent agent to do so.
Accomplice. The accomplice is the person who aids or encourages the principal to commit the illegal conduct.
Accessory After the Fact. An accessory after the fact is a person who aids another to escape knowing that he has committed a felony.
An accessory after the fact is ONLY liable for the less serious offense of being an accessory after the fact (i.e., NO accomplice liability).
An accomplice is liable for
all the crimes that the principal committed AND all other crimes that were a probable or foreseeable result, if the accomplice:
Aids, abets, or facilitates the commission of a crime committed by the principal;
With the intent that the crime be committed.
Withdrawal and Repudiation as Defenses to accomplice liability.
Withdrawal is a valid defense to accomplice liability if the accomplice withdraws his involvement BEFORE the crime becomes unstoppable.
Repudiation is a sufficient withdrawal for mere encouragement. If the accomplice’s involvement went beyond mere encouragement, then the accomplice must attempt to neutralize his assistance for the withdrawal to be sufficient.
A criminal defendant must be competent to stand trial. To be competent, under the
Dusky test, the defendant must have:
Sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of
rational understanding;
AND
A rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.
A defendant may be entitled to acquittal if, at the time of the crime, the defendant was legally insane. There are four formulations of the test to be applied in order to make this determination:
M’Naghten Rule. Under this rule, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if, because of a mental illness, he did not know:
The nature and quality of the unlawful act;
OR
The wrongfulness of the unlawful act.
Irresistible Impulse Test. Under this test, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if, because of a mental illness, he lacked the capacity:
For self-control and free choice;
OR
To conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
Model Penal Code Test. Under this test, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if, because of a mental illness, he did NOT have substantial capacity:
To appreciate the wrongfulness of the unlawful act;
OR
To conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
Durham Test. Under this test, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the unlawful act would not have been committed BUT FOR the defendant’s mental illness.
Defense of Voluntary Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication (intentional ingestion of an intoxicating substance without duress, which is known to be intoxicating to the person ingesting the substance) is a valid defense to specific intent crimes if the intoxication prevents the formation of the required intent. Voluntary intoxication does NOT apply to general intent, malice, or strict liability crimes.
Defense of Involuntary intoxication
Involuntary intoxication (ingestion of an intoxicating substance under duress or without knowledge of its intoxicating effects) is a valid defense to ALL crimes if the intoxication serves to negate an element of the crime.
Self-Defense
Nondeadly Force. A person without fault may use nondeadly force in self-defense if she:
Is confronted with unlawful force;
AND
Reasonably believes it is necessary to protect herself from the imminent use of unlawful force upon herself.
Deadly Force. A person without fault may use deadly force in self-defense if she:
Is confronted with unlawful force;
AND
Reasonably believes that she is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm.
Duty to Retreat.
In a minority of jurisdictions, a person MUST retreat before using deadly force if the victim can safely do so UNLESS:
The attack occurs in the victim’s own home;
The attack occurs while the victim is making a lawful arrest;
OR
The assailant is in the process of robbing the victim.
Imperfect Self-Defense.
Imperfect self-defense can reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant kills another based on an honest but unreasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm.
Defense of Others.
A defendant may defend others with force if he reasonably believes that the person assisted has the legal right to use force in her own defense.
Only some courts allow imperfect self-defense to be applied to situations where the defendant was defending another person.
The defense of duress is available to the defendant if
the defendant reasonably believed that another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm upon him or a family member if he did not commit the crime.
Under the Model Penal Code, threats to property can be sufficient for a duress defense if the value of the property outweighs the harm done to society by commission of the crime.
