Defenses Flashcards
Insanity generally
At the time of the crime, the defendant was so mentally ill as to be entitled to acquittal
Several formulations of tests to apply
- M’Naughten Rule
- Irresistible impulse test
- Durnham test
- A.L.I. or MPC test
M’Naughten Rule
Right / wrong test
A defendant is entitled to acquittal if
- a disease of the mind
- caused a defect of reason
- 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
Irresistible impulse test
Self control test
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
Durham / New Hampshire test
Products test - only New Hampshire applies this
A defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of their mental illness - crime would not have been committed but for the disease
A.L.I / Model Penal Code Test
Modern trend
Defendant is entitled to acquittal if they had a mental disease or defect and as a result, lacked the substantial capacity to either
- appreciate the criminality of their conduct, or
- conform their conduct to the requirements of law
Burdens of instanity
All defendants are presumed sane and defendant must prove their insanity, generally by a preponderance of the evidence
Some states and the MPC require the prosecution to prove the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt
Federal courts require the defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence
When insanity can be raised
Can be raised at the arraignment when the plea is taken but doesn’t need to be
“not guilty” at arraignment does not waive the right to raise it at some future time
Intoxication generally
May be caused by any substance
May be raised whenever intoxication negates one of the elements of the crime
Voluntary and involuntary intoxication
Voluntary intoxication
Voluntary if it is the result of the intentional taking without duress of a substance known to be intoxication
Can be offered only if the crime requires specific intent and the intoxication prevented the defendant from formulating the purpose or obtaining the knowledge
Will reduce the charge
Addicts and alcoholics - intoxication defense
For purposes of the bar, addicts and alcoholics who are intoxicated when they commit a crime are considered to be voluntarily intoxicated, rather than involuntary
Involuntary intoxication
Involuntary only if it results from the taking of an intoxicating substance
- without knowledge of its nature,
- under direct duress imposed by another, or
- pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the substance’s intoxicating effect
May be treated as a mental illness and entitled to acquittal if they meet the jurisdictions insanity test
Defense to all crimes
Intoxication relationship to insanity
Continuous, excessive drinking or drug use may bring on actual insanity and a defendant may be able to claim both intoxication defense and insanity defense
Very rarely tested
Common law infancy
Under 7 years old - no liability for an act committed
Age 7 to 14: rebuttable presumption that child was unable to understand the wrongfulness of their acts
14 and older: treated as adults
Modern statutes - infancy
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
Self-defense and other justification defenses - type of threat
The right to self-defense or other justification defenses depends on the immediacy of the treat - threat of future harm is not sufficient
Justification defenses - Non deadly force
A person without fault may use such force as the person reasonably believes is necessary to protect themself from the imminent use of unlawful force upon themself
Justified where it appears necessary to avoid imminent injury or to retain property
No duty to retreat
Justification defenses - Deadly force
May use deadly force in self-defense if the person is
- without fault
- is confronted with unlawful force, and
- reasonably believes that they are threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm
Imperfect self defense
If defendant kills in self-defense but not all three of the requirements for the use of deadly force are met, some states would find the defendant guilty of manslaughter rather than murder under the imperfect self defense doctrine
Retreat
Generally, there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force
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
- attack occurs while the victim is making a lawful arrest, or
- the assailant is in the process of robbing the victim
Aggressor using self-defense
If one is the aggressor in the confrontation, they may use force in defense of themself only if:
- they effectively withdraw from the confrontation and communicate to the other their desire to do so, or
- the victim of the initial aggression suddenly escalates the minor fight into a deadly altercation and the initial aggressor has no chance to withdraw
Defense of others
A defendant has the right to defend others if they reasonably believe that the person assisted has the legal right to use force in their own defense
Reasonable appearance of the right to use force
Generally, no special relationship needed
- minority view requires special relationship, familial relationship
Defense of a dwelling - non deadly force
Person may use non deadly force in defense of their dwelling when, and to the extent that, they reasonably believe that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate another’s unlawful entry into or attack upon their dwelling
Defense of a dwelling - deadly force
May be used 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 to prevent an entry to commit a felony in the dwelling
Force used in defending possession of property
Deadly force may never be used in defense of property
Reasonable non deadly force may be used to defend property in one’s possession 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
Force used in regaining possession
May use force to regain possession of property that they reasonably believe was wrongfully taken only if they are in immediate pursuit of the taker
Excuse of duress
It is a defense to a crime, other than intentional homicide, that the defendant reasonably believed that another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm upon them or a member of their family if the defendant did not commit the crime
Duress and threats of property
Traditionally, thats to property were not sufficient for excuse of duress
Number of states and MPC do allow for threats to property to give rise to a duress defense
- assuming that the value of the property outweighs the harm done to society by commission of the crime
Necessity
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
Test is objective - good faith belief is not sufficient
Common use view - pressure producing the choice of evils had to come from natural forces
- modern cases have abandoned this
Necessity - death limit
Causing the death of another person to protect property is never justified
Necessity - fault
The defense of necessity is not available if the defendant is at fault in creating the situation requiring that they choose between two evils
Mistake or ignorance of fact
Relevant to criminal liability only if it shows that the defendant lacked the state of mind required for the crime
Irrelevant for strict liability
Mistake or ignorance of fact - reasonableness
If mistake is offered to disprove a specific intent, the mistake does not need to be reasonable
- other defense available for specific intent crimes
If it is offered to disprove any other state of mind, it must have been a reasonable mistake or ignorance
Mistake of fact vs. factual impossibility
Mistake is usually raised when crime has been completed while factual impossibility is arises only when the defendant has failed to complete the crime
Impossibility is not a defense to attempt
Mistake or ignorance of law
Generally, it is not a defense that the defendant believed that their activity would not be a crime, even if that belief was reasonable and based on the advice of an attorney
But can maybe negate a necessary mental state element
Exceptions
Exceptions - allow defense of mistake or ignorance of law
The statute proscribing their conduct was not published or made reasonably available prior to the conduct
There was reasonable reliance on a statute or judicial decision, or
In some jurisdictions, there was reasonable reliance on official interpretation or advice
Entrapment
If the intent to commit the crime originated not with the defendant, but with law enforcement officers
Exists only if
- the criminal design originated with law enforcement officers, and
- the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to contact by the government
Merely providing the opportunity for a predisposed person to commit a crime is not entrapment
Any time see undercover officer, will want to lay out entrapment but 99% will not be a valid defense
