Defenses**

Question 1

Insanity and tests

Answer 1

D so mentally ill as tp be entitled to aquittal

Tests:
1) M’Naghten Rule
2) Irresistable Impulse
3) Durham (NH Test)
4) A.L.I, / MPC Test

Question 2

M’Naghten Rule (Test)

Answer 2

1) A disease of the mind
2) caused a defect of reason
3) such that D lacked ability to either to know the wronfulness ofactions or understand the nature and quality of their actions

Question 3

Irresistible impulse test

Answer 3

1) B/c of mental illness
2) unable to control their actions or conform their conduct to the law

Question 4

Durham/NH Test

Answer 4

Crime was a product of their mental illness

Question 5

4) ALI/MPC test

Answer 5

1) Mental disease or defect and as a result
2) lacked substantial capacity to
3) EITHER appreciate the ciminality of their conduct OR conform their conduct to the law

Question 6

Burdens of proof and persuasaion (Insanity Procedural Issues)

Answer 6

D’s are presumed sane. D Must raise the issue.

Majority states: D must prove by preponderance of the evidence.

Minority states: Prosecution must prove their sane beyond reasonable doubt.

Federal: D must prove by clear and convincing evidence

Question 7

WHen Insanity defense may be raised

Answer 7

No hard requirement. No waivers.

Question 8

Intoxication

Answer 8

Can be caused by any substance.

Voluntary: defense to specific intent crimes. Addicts/alcoholics considered voluntary.

Involuntary: Without knowledge; or under duress–defense to all crimes

Merely reduces to lower level crime. You don’t get off.

Question 9

Intoxication and Insanity

Answer 9

Continious, excessive substance use may bring about insanity. Can bring up both issues.

Question 10

Infancy under Common Law

Answer 10

Under 7: No crim liability

7-14: rebuttable presumption child unable to understand wrongfullness of acts

14+: treated as adult

Question 11

Self Defense and other justification defenses

Answer 11

Did act, but shouldn’t be punsihed b/c justification.

Question 12

Nondeadly force

Answer 12

A person without fault may use ND force as the person REASONABLY BELEIVES IS NECESSARY to protect them selves from the imminent use of unlawful force upon themself.

No duty to retreat.

Question 13

Deadly force

Answer 13

May use DF in self-defense if the person:
1) is whout fault
2) is confronted with unlawful force AND
3) reaosnably believe that they are threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm

Question 14

Duty to retreat

Answer 14

Majority: No duty

Minority: Duty if he can safely do so unless:
1) attack occurs in victims home
2) attack occurs while victim is making a lawful arrest, or
3) assaillant is in the process of robbing the victim

Question 15

RIght of aggressor to use SD

Answer 15

Only if:
1) effectivly withdraw from confromtation and communicate to the other their desire to do so, OR
2) victim of initial aggression suddenly escalates minor fight into a deadly altercation and the initial aggressor has no chance to withdraw

Question 16

Defense of others

Answer 16

Right to defend others if D reasonably believes person has right to use force in own defense.

Majority: no special relationship

Minority: special relationship

Question 17

Defense of a dwelling

Answer 17

ND Force: when they reasonably believe that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate antothers unlawful entry into or attack upon their dwelling

D force: only
1) to prevent a violent entry and
2) when person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent a personal attack on themself or another in the dwelling, or to prevent an entry to commit a felony in the dwelling

Question 18

Defending possession

Answer 18

DF = never

Reasonable ND Force = from what they reasonably b elieve is an imminent, unlawful interference

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

Question 19

Force and regaining possession

Answer 19

Reasonable belief their property was taken only if they are in immediate pursuit of the taker

Question 20

Excuse of Duress

Answer 20

Defense to crime, other than intentional homocide, that D reasonably believed another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm if the D did not commit crime

Threats to third person okay.

Traditionally, threats to property not sufficient.

Under MPC, threats to property okay if value of property > harm to society by crime.

Question 21

Necessity

Answer 21

D reasoanbly believed Comission of crime was necessary to avoid imminent and greater injury to society

Objective test.

Under common law: had to come from natrual forces
Modern: Anything, humans too

Limitations:
1) Death of another never justified
2) Defense not available if D is at fault for creating the situation

Question 22

Necessity vs Duress

Answer 22

Duress always involves a threat by a human

Question 23

Mistake or Ignorance of Fact

Answer 23

Relevant only if it shows D lacked state of midn required for crime.

SI -> mistake can be unreasonable

ANy other state of mind -> Mistake must be reasonable

Don’t confuse with factual impossibility. It’s about intent.

Question 24

Mistake or ignorance of law

Answer 24

Generally not a defense, even if reasoanble and under advice of lawyer.

Question 25

Entrapment

Answer 25

INtent to commit the crime orginated with law enforcment officers, not D. Eists only if: 1) the criminal design originated with LE officers, and 2) D was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to gov contact

Question 26

D plans to commit specific intent crime but drinks heavily beforehand, blacks out, and remembers nothing while committing/attempting to commit it.

Answer 26

Intoxication defense EXCEPTION. Can't be intoxicating yourself to "build up the courage" to do something you planned to do while sober.