Defenses Flashcards
Necessity (CL)
(CL): (1) Reasonably believe threat of imminent harm to himself or others or property (2) Reasonably believe harm he is committing is the only way to prevent the threat of harm from occurring. (3) Person cannot be the one who created the emergency in the first place. (4) It must in fact be that the harm defendant is causing is the lesser of the two evils
***Never ok for murder –> Dudley v. Stephens lost at sea case
Choice of Evils (MPC)
(MPC): Conduct that the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable, provided that:
*(a) the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged; and
*(b) neither the code nor other law defining the offense provides exceptions of defenses dealing with the specific situation involved; and
*(c) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear
Is necessity/choice of evils a defense for killings?
This defense is available for unintentional killings but not intentional killings
Duress (CL)
a person will be acquitted of any offense except murder if the criminal act was committed under the following circumstances: (1) another person threatened to kill or grievously injure the actor or a third party unless she committed the offense; (2) the actor reasonably believed that the threat was genuine; (3) the threat was “present, imminent, and impending” at the time of the criminal act; (4) there was no reasonable escape from threat except through compliance with the demands of the coercer; and (5) the actor was not at fault in exposing herself to the threat
***Never a defense to a crime of murder
Duress (MPC)
(1) affirmative defense can be used when the actor engaged in the offense was coerced to do so by the use of, or a threat to use, unlawful force against his person or the person of another, that a person of a reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist; (2) defense is unavailable if actor was reckless or negligent; (3) not a defense that a woman acted on the command of her husband, unless she acted under such coercion as would establish a defense; (4) when the conduct of the actor would otherwise be justifiable under §3.02
Intoxication (CL)
when intoxication is voluntary, it is considered a defense to specific intent crimes; however, where the intoxication is involuntary, it typically has been raised in an attempt to prove an insanity defense rather than an intoxication defense
Intoxication (MPC)
disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body
self-induced/voluntary intoxication (MPC)
intoxication caused by substances that the actor knowingly introduces into his body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication he knows or ought to know, unless he introduces them pursuant to medical advice or under such circumstances as would afford a defense to a charge of crime
Pathological intoxication (MPC)
intoxication grossly excessive in degree, given the amount of the intoxicant, to which the actor does not know he is susceptible
3 common components to justification defenses (only when repelling unlawful force)
1) necessity, 2) proportionality, 3) reasonable belief
Self-Defense
A defendant is justified in using deadly (omit if not deadly) force against another if (1) defendant is not the initial aggressor, (2) defendant reasonably believes (3) that the use of such force was necessary (4) to combat imminent, unlawful deadly force (proportionality)
