Defenses Flashcards
two categories of defenses
- excuse defenses: “forgive” D for committing a crime because of some disturbance of the D’s mental processes, thus nullifying culpability for the crime
*exam tip- all excuses turn on one question: Was the defendant’s mental process overwhelmed to the point that it is unfair to hold them accountable for the crime? - justification defenses: establish that what is normally unlawful was not unlawful under the particular facts of the case, and thus nullify the “reus” of the crime
*exam tip- all justification defenses turn on one question: Was it truly necessary for the defendant to take the law into their own hands and commit an act that is normally unlawful?
Insanity
if the D was legally insane at the time of his criminal act, no criminal responsibility will be imposed.
*burden is on the D to prove not sane.
4 tests for insanity
- M’Naghten test
- irresistible impulse test
- MPC test
- Durham Rule
M’Naghten test
D suffered from a severe mental disease or defect, and as a result was unable to know either:
-the nature and quality of his act was wrong; or
-that what he was doing was wrong
*does not include psychopathic personality
irresistible impulse test
the D is not guilty if he had a mental disease that kept him from controlling his conduct.
MPC test
As a result of mental disease or defect, D lacks substantial capacity to either:
Appreciate the criminality of his conduct; or
Conform his conduct to the requirements of the law
Durham (New Hampshire) Rule
D is not criminally responsible if the unlawful act would not have been committed but for the mental disease/defect
involuntary intoxication
a defense to any crime requiring proof of general or specific intent, so long as it negates mens rea or it caused temporary insanity
voluntary intoxication
may be a valid defense to a SPECIFIC intent crime if it negates the required mental state (may negate purposeful or knowing mental state)
NOT a defense to general intent crimes- won’t negate recklessness, negligence, or strict liability
duress
excuses criminal conduct where the D reasonably believes that the only way to avoid an unlawful threat of great bodily harm or imminent death is to engage in unlawful conduct
*not a defense to murder unless to excuse underlying felony in felony murder
self-defense
an honest and reasonable judgment that it is necessary to use force to defend an unlawful imminent threat of bodily harm
-D uses proportional force to prevent imminent harm (no more than is necessary)
homicidal self-defense
deadly force is permitted only in response to an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm
unclean hands
the first aggressor may not claim self-defense
CL: the first aggressor could regain the right to self-defense only by complete withdrawal perceived by the original victim.
modern majority: same as CL, but the first aggressor will regain the right of self-defense if the original victim responds to the aggression with excessive force.
retreat rule
(CL) The victim of unlawful violence had a duty to retreat before a use of deadly force. Does not apply when non deadly force is used.
-retreat is NOT required in the defendant’s own home, car, or office, and is not required if retreat is not feasible/safe.
defense of a third person
A defendant is justified when it is necessary to defend a third party who is facing an unlawful imminent threat of bodily harm.
Deadly force is only justified when there is a threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
majority rule: if D was reasonable but mistaken in belief that third person was being attacked, they can still claim defense of others
minority: D steps into the shoes of the V- if the third party was the aggressor, D has no defense
