Defenses

Question 1

Categories of defense (2)

Answer 1

Excuse defenses: some disturbance of mental process makes DFT not culpable. Nullify mens rea
- insanity
- involuntary intoxication
- duress
Ultimate question: WAS DFT’S MENTAL PROCESS OVERWHELMED SUCH THAT IT IS UNFAIR TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE

Justification defenses: what was normally unlawful wasn’t under these particular facts. Nullify actus reus
- self-defense or defense of others
- defense of property
- necessity
Ultimate question: WAS IT TRULY NECESSARY FOR DFT TO TAKE LAW INTO OWN HANDS

Question 2

Insanity - 4 tests

Answer 2

M’Naghten test: DFT had severe mental disease/defect, as a result was unable to know either:

• nature and quality of act, or
• that act was wrong

Irresistible impulse test: DFT had mental disease that kept from controlling conduct

MPC test: at the time and as a result of mental disease/defect, DFT lacked SUBSTANTIAL capacity to appreciate criminality or to conform their conduct to law

Durham / New Hampshire rule: mental disease or defect was but-for cause of DFT’s act

Question 3

Intoxication

Answer 3

INVOLUNTARY intoxication is a defense to any crime w intent component, so long as it negates mens rea

VOLUNTARY intoxication is a defense only to SPECIFIC intent crimes, and only if it negates requisite mental state (purposeful/knowing). Cannot negate general intent crimes, recklessness, negligence, or strict liability. Can reduce Murder 1 to Murder 2, but not to manslaughter

Question 4

Duress

Answer 4

Excuses criminal conduct where DFT reasonably believes that the ONLY way to avoid an unlawful threat of great bodily harm or imminent death is to commit crime

Can never excuse murder, except for when it excuses an underlying felony in felony murder

Question 5

Self-defense - generally

Answer 5

Honest and reasonable judgment that it is NECESSARY to use force to defend against unlawful threat of imminent bodily harm. Requires:

• victim of unlawful threat, NOT aggressor
• in IMMINENT danger, can’t call cops
• uses PROPORTIONAL force

Question 6

Self-defense and homicide

Answer 6

Deadly force permitted only in response to imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm

Question 7

Self-defense: unclean hands

Answer 7

First aggressor cannot claim self-defense, except by complete withdrawal perceived by the original victim.

Modern majority rule: can also regain self-defense if original victim responds with excessive force

Question 8

Self-defense: retreat rule

Answer 8

Common law: duty to retreat before use of deadly force

Majority rule (35 states, stand-your-ground jx) - no duty to retreat

in ALL states - no retreat required in own home/car/office, and not if infeasible

Question 9

Defense of others

Answer 9

Same rules as self-defense and lethal force.

Majority rule: was DFT’s belief that third person needed defending reasonable?

Minority rule: “step into shoes of victim” - if third party was aggressor or failed to retreat, no defense

Question 10

Defense of property

Answer 10

Reasonable NON-DEADLY force ok in defending property from theft/destruction/trespass when DFT has REASONABLE belief property is in immediate danger

NO deadly force EVER, no spring/trap guns
Deadly force ONLY justified when threat to property involves imminent threat to life as well

Question 11

Necessity

Answer 11

Act normally a crime justified when:

• necessary to avoid imminent threat of GREATER harm to persons/property,
• no reasonable alternative will avoid greater harm, AND
• DFT is not responsible for the harm