defenses

Question 1

insanity– M’Naugthen Rule

Answer 1

D entitled to acquittal if (1) disease of the mind (2) caused defect of reason such that (3) D lacked ability to know wrongfulness of actions or understand nature and quality of those actions

D cannot tell right from wrong or does not understand actions

Question 2

insanity– irresistibile impulse test

Answer 2

D entitled to acquittal if, because of mental illness, they were unable to control actions or conform their conduct to law

Question 3

Insanity– Durham (New Hampshire) Test

Answer 3

D entitled to acquittal if crime was product of mental illness e.g. but for the mental illness, D would not have done the act
* braoder

Question 4

Insanity– MPC

Answer 4

combo of M’Naughten and irresistible impulse

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 5

involuntary intoxication

Answer 5

results from taking substance without knowledge of its nature, under duress, or pursuant to medical advice while unaware of intoxicating effect

defense to all crimes

Question 6

voluntary intoxication

Answer 6

Results from intentional taking, without duress, of substance known to be intoxicating
* but if you have intent to commit a crime, and then you drink to work up your nerve, you cannot rely on intoxication defense even if lack intent at time of actual act e.g. killing

defense to SI crimes

Question 7

insanity

Answer 7

defenses to all crimes

Question 8

infancy

Answer 8

@ CL:
* No liability for an act committed by a child < 7– absolute defense to all crimes
* 7-14 = rebuttable presumption child unable to understand wrongfulness of acts
* 14 or older = treated as adult

D under 13 or 14 under modern statutes