Defenses Flashcards
Fully Exculpatory v. Partially Exculpatory
(Fully exculpatory defense)- relieves the D of any guilt or blame
-(Partially exculpatory defense)- merely reduces blameworthiness (guilty but)
Types of Fully Exculpatory Defenses
Include:
- Insanity
- Perfect Self-Defense
- Involuntary Intoxication
Types of Partially Exculpatory Defense
Include:
- Adequate provocation
- Imperfect self-defense
- Voluntary Intoxication
Excuse v. Justification
(Excuse)- acknowledges Ds conduct as wrongful and blameworthy, but circumstances were such that D should not be held fully responsible.
-(Justification)- alleges that criminal act was warranted (not wrongful or blameworthy)
Types of Excuses (ACDDEIIIM)
Include:
- Adequate provocation
- Competency
- Duress
- Diminished Capacity
- Entrapment
- Infancy
- Intoxication
- Insanity
- Mistake of fact
Types of Justification
Include:
- Defense of Property
- Domestic Authority
- Law Enforcement Arrests
- Necessity
- Resisting Unlawful Arrest
- Self-Defense
Insanity
If the D is insane at the time of his criminal act, no criminal liability will be imposed for the criminal act. 4 tests include:
- M’Naghten test
- Irresistible impulse test
- Durham Rule
- MPC Test
M’Naghten Test
D is not guilty if at the time of the crime, they were laboring under a defect of reason from a disease of the mind which caused them to not know the nature and quality of their act or not know that their acts were wrong.
Split in M’Naghten Jurisdictions
There is a split on whether “wrong” includes both legal and moral wrongs:
- some jurisdictions will find that a defendant is not insane, where, even though the D believes the act was not morally wrong, he knows it to be illegal.
- other jurisdictions will find Ds who do not know an act was morally wrong to be insane, regardless of their belief as to the act’s legality.
What Constitutes a “Disease of the Mind” Under the M’Naghten Test?
All mental abnormalities, but not a psychopathic personality.
Irresistible Impulse Test
D is not guilty if at crime’s commission, they had a mental disease that kept them from controlling their conduct.
Durham Rule
D is not guilty if but for the mental defect or disease –> the D would not have been committed.
MPC Test
D is not guilty if they lacked the substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality of their conduct or conform their conduct to req. of law.
Presumption of Sanity
A D is presumed sane, therefore, the burden is on the D to prove otherwise (clear and convincing in federal court, preponderance of evidence in state court).
Competency: What is Incompetency?
When Ds have insufficient present ability to consult counsel with a reasonable and rational understanding of the proceedings.
Competency: Restoration
Even if a D is found incompetent, he can later be tried and punished if competency is restored.
Insanity v. Competency
Insanity concern’s state of mind at time of offense; competency is assessed at any time during criminal proceedings.
Competency: BOP
Is preponderance of the evidence. In the federal system, the BOP falls on the party making the motion to determine competence.
Diminished Capacity
When as a result of a mental defect, the D did not have a state of mind that is an element of the offense (used to negate specific mental state).
Voluntary Intoxication
Can only be used as a defense to specific-intent crimes (negates the specific mental state). Cannot be used for SL or general intent crimes.
Voluntary Intoxication: BOP
D has BOP of showing that they were intoxicated & that intoxication prevented them from forming requisite intent.
Involuntary Intoxication
Is a defense to general-intent and specific-intent crimes, but never SL.
Infancy
Today most states have abolished the CL presumptions and established a specific minimum age required for a criminal conviction.
Duress
When the D reasonably believes that the only way to avoid unlawful threats of great bodily harm or imminent death is to engage in unlawful conduct.