Defenses

Question 1

Different Insanity Tests

Answer 1

M’Naghten Rule: Defendant does not know right from wrong or does
not understand his actions

Irresistible Impulse Test: An impulse that defendant cannot resist

Durham (or New Hampshire) Test: But for the mental illness, defendant would not have done the act

MPC Test: Combination of M’Naghten and irresistible impulse

Question 2

M’Naghten Rule

Answer 2

Defense of Insanity

A defendant is entitled to acquittal if:
(1) a disease of the mind
(2) caused a defect of reason
(3) such that the defendant lacked the ability at the time of their actions to either know the wrongfulness of their actions or understand the nature and quality of their actions.

Question 3

Irresistible Impulse Test

Answer 3

A defendant is entitled to acquittal only if, because of a mental illness, they were unable to control their actions or conform their conduct to the law.

Question 4

Durham (or New Hampshire) Test

Answer 4

A defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of their mental illness (that is, the crime would not have been committed but for the disease).

This test is broader than either the M’Naghten test or the irresistible impulse test.

Followed only in New Hampshire.

Question 5

MPC Test to Determine Insanity

Answer 5

A defendant is entitled to acquittal if they had a mental disease or defect, and, as a result, they lacked the substantial capacity to either:
(1) Appreciate the criminality of their conduct, or
(2) Conform their conduct to the requirements of law

Question 6

Mental Condition and the Due Process Clause

Answer 6

Under the Due Process Clause, a defendant may not be tried, convicted, or sentenced if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, they are unable:
(1) to understand the nature of the proceedings being brought against them, or
(2) to assist their lawyer in the preparation of their defense.

A defendant may not be executed if they are incapable of understanding the nature and purpose of the punishment.

Question 7

Diminished Capacity

Answer 7

The defendant may assert that as a result of a mental defect short of insanity, they did not have the mental state required for the crime charged.

Most states allowing the diminished capacity defense limit it to specific intent crimes, but a few states allow it for general intent crimes as well.

Question 8

Intoxication, Generally

Answer 8

• Voluntary or Involuntary
• May be raised whenever intoxication negates one of the elements of the crime

Question 9

Voluntary Intoxication

Answer 9

Intoxication is voluntary if it is the result of the intentional taking without duress of a substance known to be intoxicating.

May be offered by the defendant ONLY IF the crime requires intent or knowledge, and the intoxication prevented the defendant from formulating the purpose or obtaining the knowledge.

Can be used as a defense to specific intent crimes, but not to general intent, malice, or strict liability crime.

NOTE: This defense does not apply if the defendant purposefully becomes intoxicated in order to establish the defense.

Question 10

Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 10

Involuntary only if it results from the taking of an intoxicating substance:

(1) WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE of its nature,
(2) Under DURESS imposed by another, or
(3) Pursuant to MEDICAL ADVISE while unaware of the substance’s intoxicating effect.

It may be treated as a mental illness, and the defendant is entitled to acquittal if they meet the jurisdiction’s insanity test. This is therefore a defense to all crimes.

Question 11

Infancy

Answer 11

Common Law:
Under Age 7: No liability
Between 7-14: Rebuttable presumption that the child was unable to understand the wrongfulness of their acts.
14 or older: Treated as adults.

Modern Statutes: No child can be convicted of a crime until a stated age is reached, usually 13 or 14. However, children can be found to be delinquent in special juvenile or family courts.

Question 12

Use of Non-deadly Force

Answer 12

A person without fault may use non-deadly force as the person reasonably
believes is necessary to protect themself from the imminent use of
unlawful force upon themself.

There is no duty to retreat.

Question 13

Use of Deadly Force

Answer 13

A person may use deadly force in self-defense if the person:
(1) is without fault,
(2) is confronted with “unlawful force”, and
(3) reasonably believes that they are threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm.

Question 14

Exceptions to the Duty to Retreat

Answer 14

The minority view requires 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

Question 15

When Can the Aggressor Use Self-Defense?

Answer 15

The initial aggressor may use force in self defense of themself only if:

(1) They effectively withdraw from the confrontation and communicate to the other their desire to do so, or

(2) The victim of the initial aggression suddenly escalates the minor fight into a deadly altercation and the initial aggressor has no chance to withdraw

Question 16

When is the Defense of Others Allowed?

Answer 16

A defendant has the right to defend others if they reasonably believe
that the person has the legal right to use force in their own defense.

• Just need a reasonable appearance of the right to use force.
• Generally no special relationship needed between the defendant and the person

Question 17

When Can You Use Non-deadly Force to Defend a Dwelling?

Answer 17

When a person reasonably believe that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate another’s unlawful entry into or attack upon their dwelling

Question 18

When Can You Use Deadly Force to Defend a Dwelling?

Answer 18

Only to prevent a violent entry and when the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent:
- A personal attack on themself or another in the dwelling, or
- An entry to commit a felony in the dwelling.

Question 19

What Force is Allowed to Defend Possessions?

Answer 19

Deadly force may NEVER be used in defense of property.

Reasonable, nondeadly force may be used to defend property from what they reasonably believe is an imminent, unlawful interference.

Force may not be used if a request to desist or refrain from the activity would suffice

Question 20

What Force is Allowed to Regain Possessions?

Answer 20

Force is allowed to regain property that the person reasonably believes was wrongfully taken ONLY IF they are in immediate pursuit of the taker.

Question 21

What Force Can Police Officers Use to Arrest Someone?

Answer 21

If reasonably necessary to effectuate an arrest: Non-deadly force

If necessary to prevent a felon’s escape and reasonable belief that the felon threatens death or serious bodily harm: Deadly force

NOTE: A bystander summoned by a police officer to assist them in making
an arrest has the same authority to use force as the officer, and the
bystander’s good faith assistance is justified even if it turns out that
the officer was exceeding their authority.

Question 22

What Force Can Private Citizens Use to Arrest Someone?

Answer 22

Same rights as a police officer EXCEPT:

A private person has a privilege to use NON-DEADLY force to make an arrest if a crime was in fact committed and the private person has reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested has in fact committed the crime.

A private person may use DEADLY force only if the person harmed was actually guilty of the offense for which the arrest was made.

Question 23

Excuse of Duress

Answer 23

Other than intentional homicide, it is a defense to that the defendant reasonably believed that another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm upon them if the defendant did not commit the crime.

Traditionally: threats to property were not sufficient
MPC: Allows for threats to property to create a duress defense if the property is sufficiently valuable.

Question 24

Necessity

Answer 24

It is a defense to a crime that the person reasonably believed that
commission of the crime was necessary to avoid an imminent and
greater injury to society than that involved in the crime.
- OBJECTIVE test
- Never applies to the death of another person to protect property
- Does not apply if D created the situation requiring the choice between two evils

Question 25

Duress or Necessity?

Answer 25

Duress ALWAYS involves a threat by a human.

Question 26

Mistake or Ignorance of Fact

Answer 26

Only relevant to criminal liability if it shows that the defendant lacked the state of mind required for the crime (therefore does not apply to strict liability crimes)

Question 27

How reasonable does a mistake of fact need to be in order to work as a defense?

Answer 27

If the mistake is offered to disprove a specific intent, the mistake DOES NOT need to be reasonable

If the mistake is offered to disprove any other state of mind, it must have been a reasonable mistake or ignorance.

Question 28

Mistake of Fact or Factual Impossibility?

Answer 28

Mistake: Usually raised as a defense to a crime that has been completed, and the mistake of fact negates the intent required for the crime.

Impossibility: Arises only when the defendant has failed to complete the crime because of their mistaken belief about the facts, and is being charged with an attempt to commit the crime. It is not a defense to attempt.

Question 29

Mistake or Ignorance of the Law

Answer 29

Generally, not a defense (even if a reasonable belief and based on the advice of an attorney)

EXCEPTIONS:
(1) The statute prohibiting their conduct was not published or made reasonably available prior to the conduct
(2) There was reasonable reliance on a statute or judicial
decision, or
(3) in some jurisdictions, there was reasonable reliance on official interpretation or advice.

Question 30

Entrapment Definition

Answer 30

Entrapment exists only if:
(1) The criminal design originated with law enforcement officers, and
(2) The defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to contact by the government.

NOTE: A person cannot be entrapped by a private citizen.
NOTE: This defense cannot be based solely on the fact that a government agent provided an ingredient for commission of the crime (for example, ingredients for drugs), even if the material provided was contraband.