Defenses

Question 1

What are the 5 categories of defenses?

Answer 1

(1) Failure of proof
(2) Offense modifications
(3) Justifications
(4) Excuses
(5) Non-exculpatory Public Policy Defenses

Question 2

What are the 4 requirements of self-defense?

Answer 2

(1) Necessity
- Was the use of force necessary to prevent harm to self?
(2) Imminency
(3) Proportionality
- level of force must correspond with the level of harm avoided
(4) Reasonable belief
- did the defendant reasonably believe force was necessary to repel an imminent unlawful attack?

Question 3

What are the two approaches from United States v. Peterson? (defenses)

Answer 3

Common law (minority approach): “retreat to the wall”

Majority approach: can use deadly force whenever reasonably necessary to save oneself: “stand your ground”

Question 4

What is the MPC approach to self defense?

Answer 4

“The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion”

Question 5

What was the rule from People v. Goetz? (defenses)

Answer 5

A person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense or defense of another only if she objectively and reasonably believes an attacker is either (1) using or about to use deadly force or (2) committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, or robbery.

Question 6

Can an actor’s erroneous belief satisfy the reasonable belief requirement in the MPC (self defense)?

Answer 6

No, somebody who knows that there is a substantial unjustifiable risk that they’re wrong about needing to use deadly force – but still shoots anyway – they’ve acted recklessly under the MPC

Question 7

What is the rule from state v. Norman? (defenses)

Answer 7

Evidence of battered-wife syndrome will not absolutely justify a killing unless the defendant believed the killing was necessary in order to avoid IMMINENT death or great bodily harm. (case where woman is treated like a dog by husband)

Question 8

What is battered woman syndrome?

Answer 8

The repeated cycle of abuse that causes a woman to feel helpless and passive in her abusive marriage

Question 9

What is the rule from State v. Boyett (defenses)?

Answer 9

In New Mexico, the defense of habitation does not require an intruder to physically enter a home before the owner may use deadly force necessary to prevent the commission of a felony inside the home.

Question 10

Does defense of habitation refer to anything other than the home and its occupants?

Answer 10

No, personal property does not count

Question 11

What is the MPC approach to defense of habitation?

Answer 11

Defense of property: may not use deadly force to protect personal property; MPC § 3.06(3)(d)

There are narrow exceptions to this rule explained in the MPC section

Question 12

What are the majority and minority rules about defense of others?

Answer 12

Majority: The reasonable belief standard

Minority: Alter Ego Rule - can only be justified in defense of others if that other person would have also had the right of self defense

Question 13

What are the common law elements of the necessity defense?

Answer 13

(1) A clear and imminent danger
(2) A reasonable expectation that the defendant’s action will effectively abate the danger
(3) No legally effective way to abate the danger
(4) The harm abated is greater than the harm resulting from the defendant’s violation of the law
(5) The defendant has not substantially contributed to the danger’s existence (but not always required)

Question 14

How does the MPC treat the necessity defense?

Answer 14

MPC classifies this defense as a justification under § 3.02

Question 15

What are some differences between MPC and common law necessity defenses?

Answer 15

○ MPC is not limited to “natural” threats of harm
○ MPC contains no imminency requirement
○ MPC expressly includes a “fault” provision (3.02(2))
○ MPC permits necessity defense in intentional homicide cases, whereas common law (likely) does not

Question 16

What is the rule from Nelson v. State (defenses)

Answer 16

The commission of a crime is justifiable if it is necessary to prevent a greater harm from occurring. (“Choice of evils”)

Question 17

What are the elements of duress?

Answer 17

○ 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 impeding” at the time of the criminal act
(4) There was no reasonable escape from the threat except through compliance with the demands of the coercer; and
(5) The actor was not at fault in exposing herself to the threat

Question 18

What is the difference between duress and necessity?

Answer 18

“The major difference between duress and necessity is that the former negates the existence of the requisite mens rea for the crime in question, whereas under the latter theory there is no actus reus”

Question 19

What is the rule from United States v. Contento-Pachon?

Answer 19

A defendant is excused from criminal culpability if he commits his crime under the threat of death or serious bodily injury. (drug mule case)

Question 20

What is the rule from State v. Johnson? (defenses)

Answer 20

Insanity defense: A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of the conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, the person’s capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law is so substantially impaired that he cannot justly be held responsible.

Question 21

What are the four approaches to the insanity defense?

Answer 21

(1) M’Naghten rule
(2) “Irresistible Impulse” test
(3) The “product” test
(4) MPC test

Question 22

What is the M’Naghten rule?

Answer 22

○ All defendants are presumed to be sane unless they can prove–at the time of committing the criminal act–the defendant’s state of mind caused them to:
(1) Not know what they were doing when they committed said act, or
(2) That they knew what they were doing but did not know that it was wrong

Question 23

What is the product test?

Answer 23

Excuses from criminal liability a defendant whose acts “were the product of a mental disease or defect”

Question 24

What is the irresistible impulse or control test?

Answer 24

(1) At the time of the crime, the defendant suffered from either a disease of the mind “so as to be either idiotic, or otherwise insane”; and
(a) Defendant’s insanity prevented him from knowing right from wrong “as applied to the particular [criminal] act”; OR
(b) Even if the defendant knew right from wrong:
a) The mental disease deprived the defendant of the power to choose not to do the wrongful act
b) The mental disease was the sole cause of the wrongful act

Question 25

What is the MPC test for insanity?

Answer 25

○ 4.01: relieved of criminal liability under two circumstances: (At the time of the conduct)
(1) When, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct;

(2) When, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law

Question 26

What is the diminished capacity doctrine?

Answer 26

The diminished capacity doctrine allows a criminal defendant to introduce evidence of mental abnormality at trial either to negate a mental element of the crime charged, or to reduce the degree of crime for which the defendant may be convicted, even if the defendant’s conduct satisfied all the formal elements of a higher offense

Question 27

What are the two variants of the diminished capacity doctrine?

Answer 27

• The Mens Rea variant (majority approach)
  “I did not commit the crime charged because I did not possess the requisite mens rea”
• Partial responsibility variant (minority approach):
  ○ Excuse defense

Question 28

What is the rule from United States v. Veach? (defenses)

Answer 28

Intoxication negates the mens rea of a specific intent crime and thereby serves as a defense, but it does not negate the mens rea of a general intent crime. (common law rule)

Question 29

What is the MPC approach to intoxication?

Answer 29

○ MPC § 2.08(1)-(3)
- “intoxication is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense”
- When recklessness establishes an element of the offense, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to recklessness