Defenses

Question 1

Insanity - Possible Rules

Answer 1

• M’Naghten Rule
• Irresistible Impulse Test
• Durham Test
• ALI or MPC Test

Question 2

Insanity - M’Naghten Rule

Answer 2

• def doesn’t know right from wrong or doesn’t understand his actions
• technically also need a disease of the mind to have caused this defect of reason

Question 3

Insanity - Irresistible Impulse Test

Answer 3

• an impulse that def cannot resist
• b/c of mental illness, def unable to control actions or conform conduct to the law

Question 4

Insanity - Durham Test

Answer 4

• but for the mental illness, def wouldn’t have done the act
• def entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of their mental illness
• broader than the other tests, but only followed in New Hampshire

Question 5

MPC Test

Answer 5

• combo of M’Naghten + irresistible impulse
• def entitled to acquittal if had a mental disease or defect +, as a result, lacked the substantial capacity to either 1) appreciate the criminality of their conduct, or 2) conform their conduct to the requirements of the law

Question 6

Insanity - Procedural Issues

Answer 6

• def must raise + often prove insanity
• def can raise insanity at arraignment, but doesn’t forego right to do so w/ not guilty plea (can raise later)
• if def does NOT raise insanity issue, def may refuse a court-ordered psychiatric exam to determine competency to stand trial (can’t refuse exam by court-ordered psychiatrist if did raise insanity though)

Question 7

Diminished Capacity

Answer 7

• recognized as a defense in some states
• def may assert that as result of mental defect short of insanity, they didn’t have the mental state required for the crime charged

Question 8

Intoxication - Overall

Answer 8

• may be cause by any substance
• may be raised whenever it negates one of the elements of the crime
• law usually distinguishes between voluntary + involuntary

Question 9

Voluntary Intoxication

Answer 9

-result of intentional taking w/o duress of a substance known to be intoxicating
- may be offered only if crime requires purpose or knowledge, + intoxication prevented def from forming that
-> might work as defense to specific intent crimes
-> BUT not for general intent, malice or strict liability
- note that MBE considers addiction/alcoholism voluntary intoxication

Question 10

Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 10

• results from taking of an intoxicating substance w/o knowledge of its nature, under direct duress imposed by another, or pursuant to medical advice while unaware of substance’s intoxicating effect
• may be treated as a mental illness
  -> def entitled to acquittal if they meet the jur’s insanity test

Question 11

Infancy

Answer 11

• common law - no liability for act committed by child under 7 + rebuttable presumption for 7 to 14, then treated as adults
• modern - often provide no child can be convicted of a crime until a stated age, usually 13 or 14, BUT can be found “delinquent” in special juvenile or family courts

Question 12

Self-Defense - Nondeadly Force vs. Deadly Force

Answer 12

• nondeadly force generally justified where appears necessary to avoid imminent injury or retain property
• vs. deadly force justified only to prevent death or serious bodily injury

Question 13

Self-Defense - Non-Deadly Force

Answer 13

• person w/o fault may use nondeadly force if reasonably believes necessary to protect self from imminent use of unlawful force upon self
• no duty to retreat

Question 14

Self-Defense - Deadly Force

Answer 14

May use deadly force in self-defense if:
1) w/o fault
2) confronted w/ unlawful force AND
3) reasonably believes that they’re threatened w/ imminent death or great bodily harm

Question 15

Deadly Force - Retreat

Answer 15

• generally no duty to retreat
• minority view - requires retreat if victim can do so safely unless attack in victim’s own home, while victim making lawful arrest, or while assailant robbing victim

Question 16

Right of Aggressor to Use Self-Defense

Answer 16

Aggressor may use force only if:
- they effectively withdraw from confrontation + communicate their desire to do so OR
- the victim of the initial aggression suddenly escalates minor fight into deadly altercation + initial aggressor has no chance to withdraw

Question 17

Defense of Others

Answer 17

• def has right to defend others if reasonably believe that the person assisted has the legal right to use force in their own defense
  -> need reasonable appearance of the right to use force
• don’t usually need special relationship between def + person they acted on behalf of

Question 18

Defense of a Dwelling

Answer 18

• may use nondeadly force in defense of dwelling when reasonably believe such conduct necessary to prevent or terminate another’s entry or unlawful attack on it
• deadly force - can only use to prevent violent entry + when person reasonably believes that use of force is necessary to prevent a personal attack on self or another in the dwelling, or to prevent entry to commit a felony in the dwelling

Question 19

Defense of Other Property

Answer 19

• can NEVER use deadly force in defense of property
• can use reasonable nondeadly force from imminent unlawful interference
• force may not be used at all if request to desist or refrain from activity would suffice
• may also use force to regain possession of property wrongfully taken if in immediate pursuit of the taker

Question 20

Use of Force - Crime Prevention

Answer 20

• nondeadly force may be used to extent that it reasonably appears necessary to prevent felony or serious breach of peace
• deadly force may be used only if it appears reasonably necessary to terminate or prevent a dangerous felony involving risk to human life

Question 21

Use of Force to Effectuate Arrest - Police Officers

Answer 21

• nondeadly force may be used if reasonably necessary to effectuate arrest
• deadly force reasonable only if necessary to prevent felon’s escape AND police officer reasonably believes that the felon threatens death or serious bodily harm
• a bystander summoned by police to assist in making an arrest has same authority to use force as the officer, + bystander’s good faith is justified even if it turns out the officer was exceeding their authority

Question 22

Use of Force to Effectuate Arrest - Private Persons

Answer 22

Private person has the same right to arrest as a police officer with the following exceptions:
- privilege to use nondeadly force to make arrest if crime was in fact committed + private person has reasonable grounds to believe person arrested has in fact committed the crime
- may use deadly force only if the person harmed was actually guilty of the offense for which the arrest was made

Question 23

Resisting Arrest

Answer 23

• under majority rule, nondeadly force may be used to resist an improper arrest even if a known officer is making that arrest
• deadly force may be used only if person doesn’t know the person arresting them is a police officer

Question 24

Excuse of Duress

Answer 24

• defense to a crime other than intentional homicide
• def reasonably believed another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm on them or member of family if def didn’t commit crime (threats to third person may also suffice)
• threats to property traditionally not sufficient, though qualifies in a number of states + MPC (harm to property must outweigh societal harm of the crime)

Question 25

Necessity

Answer 25

• person reasonably believed commission of crime necessary to avoid imminent + greater injury to society than that involved in the crime
• objective test (good faith belief insufficient)
• common law required pressure to come from natural forces, vs. modern no

Question 26

Necessity - Limitations

Answer 26

• causing death of another to protect property never justified
• not available if def at fault in creating situation requiring choice between two evils

Question 27

Mistake or Ignore of Fact

Answer 27

• relevant only if it shows def lacked state of mind required for the crime
  -> irrelevant for strict liability
• if offered to disprove specific intent, mistake need not be reasonable
• vs. for other states of mind, must be reasonable mistake/ignorance

Question 28

Mistake or Ignorance of Law

Answer 28

• generally NOT a defense that def believed their activity wouldn’t be a crime (even if belief reasonable or based on attorney advice)
  -> reliance on attorney could negate mental state element though

Question 29

Mistake or Ignorance of Law - Exceptions

Answer 29

Defense valid if:
1) statute proscribing conduct wasn’t published or made reasonably available prior to conduct
2) there was reasonable reliance on a statute or judicial decision OR
3) in some jurisdictions, there was reasonable reliance on official interpretation or advice

Question 30

Entrapment

Answer 30

• occurs if intent to commit the crime originated w/ law enforcement

Exists only if:
1) criminal design originated w/ law enforcement officers, AND
2) def was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to contact by gov

• merely providing opportunity for predisposed person is not entrapment

Question 31

Entrapment - Instances Where Unavailable

Answer 31

• can’t be entrapped by private citizen
• defense can’t be based solely on fact that gov agent provided ingredient for commission of the crime