Defenses Flashcards
Insanity
Defendants are presumed sane and must raise the insanity defense:
-Majority view is that D must prove insanity by preponderance of the evidence
-MPC requires prosecutors to prove D was sane beyond a reasonable doubt
-Federal courts require prosecutors to prove D was sane by clear and convincing evidence
Four different tests:
-M’Naghten Rule
-Irresistible Impulse Test
-Durham Test
-MPC Test
M’Naghten Rule
Defendant is entitled to acquittal if:
D does not know right from wrong or does not understand his actions
*Most popular test for exam purposes
D does not know right from wrong or does not understand his actions
Irresistible Impulse Test (self-control)
Defendant is entitled to acquittal only if:
an impulse that D cannot resist
Durham Test (products)
Defendant is entitled to acquittal only if:
But for the mental illness, D would not have done the act
MPC Test
Defendant is entitled to acquittal if D had a mental disease or defect and as a result lacked the substantial capacity to either:
(1) appreciate the criminality of his conduct; or
(2) conform his conduct to the requirements of law
Intoxication defense
Intoxication may be caused by an substance and can be raised whenever intoxication negates an element of the crime
Two types:
Voluntary intoxication (only available for specific intent crimes)
Involuntary intoxication
Voluntary intoxication
Result of intentionally taking, without duress, of a substance known to be intoxicating
-Can be raised as a defense for specific intent crimes, but not to general intent, malice, or strict liability crimes
-Theory is that intoxication interferes with D’s ability to formulate purpose of actions
-Cannot purposely become intoxicated to order to establish defense
-For recklessness crimes, a person who would have been aware of the risk had he not been intoxicated still acts recklessly
Involuntary intoxication
Taking an intoxicating substance without knowledge of its nature, under duress, or pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the substance’s intoxicating effect
-Equivalent to insanity, so D is entitled to acquittal if they can prove the jurisdiction’s insanity test
-Defense to all crimes
*Addicts and alcoholics are considered voluntarily intoxicated
Infancy
Modern statute
-Under 7 years of age = no criminal liability
-Ages 7-14 = rebuttable presumption of infancy
Applies to all defendants under age 14 at common law
Defense to all crimes
Justification defenses
- Self-defense
- Defense of others
- Defense of dwelling
- Defense of other property
Threat must be immediate; a threat of future harm is not sufficient
Non-deadly force
Non-deadly force is justified where it appears necessary to avoid imminent injury or to retain property
Deadly froce
Deadly force is justified only to prevent death or serious bodily injury
Defendant may invoke the “imperfect self defense” doctrine when he kills in self-defense but does not meet the three requirements to use deadly force:
(1) D is not at fault
(2) D is confronted with unlawful force; and
(3) D reasonably believes he is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm
Retreat
Majority view: no duty to retreat before using deadly force
Minority view: duty to retreat before using deadly force unless:
-Attack occurs in victim’s home
-Attack occurs while victim is making lawful arrest; or
-Assailant is in the process of robbing the victim
Right of aggressor to use self-defense
A first aggressor may only use force in defense of themself only if:
-He effectively withdraw and communicates his withdrawal; or
-Victim of initial aggression suddenly escalates a minor fight into a deadly altercation
Defense of others
D has the right to defend others if he reasonably believes that the person assisted has the legal right to use force in their own defense
-Only requires reasonable appearance of the right to use force
-No special relationship required
Defense of a dwelling
A person may use non-deadly force to defend a dwelling to prevent or terminate another’s unlawful entry into or attack upon their dwelling
-Deadly force only usable when the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an attack or to prevent an entry to commit a felony in the dwelling
Defense of other property
Deadly force may never be used in defense of property
Reasonable, non-deadly force may be used to defend one’s own [property from an imminent unlawful threat or to regain possession of property if he is in immediate pursuit of the taker
Duress defense
Defendant reasonably believed that another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm upon him or a member of his family if D did not commit the crime
-Not applicable to intentional homicide
Threats to property
-Common law: not sufficient
-MPC: allowed if value of property outweighs the harm done to society by commission of the crime
Necessity defense
Defendant reasonably believed that commission of the crime was necessary to avoid an imminent and greater injury to society than that involved in the crime (causing death never justified)
-Objective standard
-Not available if D created situation
-Additional common law requirement: natural forces only
Duress vs. necessity defense
Duress always involves a threat by a human
Mistake or ignorance of fact
Only relevant to criminal liability if it shows that D lacked the required state of mind
-Successful mistake defense = no intent
-No mistake defense for strict liability because intent is irrelevant
-Differentiate from factual impossibility: mistake is raised as a defense to a completed crime to negate the intent requirement, while impossibility arises when a defendant failed to complete the crime and is charged is attempt
Specific intent crimes allow the unreasonable mistake of fact defense, but any other crime only allows the reasonable mistake of fact defense
Mistake of ignorance of law
Not a defense even if the belief was reasonable and based on the advice of an attorney
