Defenses Flashcards
Affirmative Defense
- negates guilt even if all elements are proven beyond a rsbl doubt
- Defense has burden of proof
- justification or excuse
Justification General
- actors conduct benefits society
- focus on the actor
- harm caused should still be avoided whenever possible
- ex. self-defense
Excuse general
- actors conduct need not benefit society
- focus on actor
Failure of Proof
- negate some of all elements of proof
- mistake of fact, voluntary intoxication, alibi
Patterson v. NY
- D can be req to prove affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance
Justification Defenses
triggering conditions permit a necessary & proportional response
triggering conditions
- circumstances that must exist before one can justifiably act
Necessity Req
one may act only when & to the extent necessary
Proportional
limits the harm that may be caused to protect/further interest
Self Defense CL
- Actual or apparent threat of deadly force or serious bodily harm against offender
- Threat must be unlawful & immediate
- Defender must actually believe he is in imminent peril of death/SBH & his response is necessary to save himself
- Belief must be objectively rsbl
Aggressor Rule
- The aggressor is not entitled to self-defense
Aggressor Definition
- provokes conflict
- free from fault
- engaged in affirmative unlawful act rsbly calculated to produce portrayal of injury
MPC Force
- can avoid the use of force if there’s a less violent way
1. did D provoke?
2. Was D entitled to use such force?
Regaining the Right to Self-Defense
- If withdraws from conflict in good faith & informs other party by words or conduct
Escalation of Force
A attack B but B begins using lethal excessive force, A may then use deadly force
- A honestly & rsbly believes he’s in danger of death or SBH
Necessity of Force
- force used was necessary, there was no other alternative such as safely retreating or withdrawing
- Question: Necessary to exercise self-defense?
Retreat Rule CL
Innocent person threatened by deadly force must retreat rather than use deadly force if he knows he can safely retreat
No Retreat Rule
Non-aggressor may use deadly force to repel an unlawful deadly attack even if they knows they may safely retreat
- ex. FL stand your ground
Retreat Rule MPC
One may not use deadly force if he “knows he can avoid necessity of using such force w complete safety by retreating”
Castle Exception CL
One who, through no fault of own, is attacked in his home is under no duty to retreat even if could do so safely
Castle Exception MPC
Innocent person not obligated to retreat from dwelling or workplace
The Proportionality Requirement
Deadly force may not be used to repel non-deadly attacks even if the only way to avoid injury
Reasonable Belief Req CL
In order to use deadly force in self-defense, actors belief as to intent of the other to inflict injury must be objectively reasonable
- evaluated in relation to the circumstances
- objective standard
Reasonable Belief Req MPC
Force is justified when the actor believes such force is necessary
- subjective standard
2 rules for Defense of Others
- Reasonable Appearance Rule
- Alter Ego Rule
Reasonable Appearance Rule
Intervenor can justly use deadly/non-deadly force to the extent seemingly necessary to intervenor
Alter Ego Rule
intervenor can only use force if defending party would have been justified to use such force
Necessity CL
- Actor faced w clear & imminent danger or evil
- Actor must rsbly expect his action will be directly effective to abate
- No legal alternative will be effective
- Legislature must not have acted to preclude by clear and deliberate choice
- Harm caused must be less than harm avoided (not disproportionate)
Necessity MPC
- no imminence requirement
- subjective belief conduct is necessary
** harm avoided must still be greater than harm caused
Weighing the Harm
Competing harm should be balanced as they reasonably appear to D at the time he acted
Defense to Murder: Double Effect
- Death is permitted but not intended
Double Effect MPC
MPC allows killing of innocent to save others
Self-Defense State v. Norman
Self Defense
1. Appears to D & D believes if necessary to kill the deceased in order to save herself from death or great bodily harm
- subj standard
2. D’s belief must be reasonable
- obj standard: person of ordinary firmness under the same circumstances
Does CL require imminence?
Yes
Does MPC require imminence
No, MPC requires “immediately necessary”
- less strict standard
Duress CL
- Another threatened to kill or grievously injure the actor or another, near relative, unless actor completes the crime
- Actor rsbly believed the threat was genuine
- Threat was present, imminent, and impending
- No rsbl escape from the threat except through compliance w demands
- Actor not at fault in exposing himself to the threat
Duress MPC
Compelled to commit the offense by use or threatened use, of unlawful force by coercer upon him or another
- person of rsbl firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist
** unavailable to one who recklessly places himself in situation where coercion is likely
** More broad that CL, no imminence req, no req as to the severity of threat, does not exclude murder
Difference between Necessity & Duress
Nature of Defense
- necessity is justification –> free will properly exercised
- duress is excuse –> free will overcome by outside source
Triggering Conditions
- Necessity is caused by nature and human forces
- Duress caused by human forces only
Intoxication CL
- Voluntariness
- Intoxication taken w actors knowledge w/o force or fraud - Intoxication
- State of mental confusion, excluding possibility of specific intent
What does intoxication negate CL?
negates specific intent & knowledge
What does intoxication negate MPC?
negates purposely & knowingly
- not defense for general intent crime
Involuntary Intoxication
- Coerced
- By innocent mistake
- Unexpected from prescribed medicine
- Pathological
Involuntary Intoxication jurisdictional divide
most will treat involuntary intoxication as excuse defense not failure of proof
Incompetent
-Lacks capacity to consult w council
- may be temporary or permanent
- trial not allowed (bc results not reliable)
Effects of temporary incompetence
- criminal procedure suspended until considered competent
-committed until
Effects of Permanent incompetence
never tried but committed
5 tests for incompetence
- M’Naughten
- Irresistible Impulse
- Product of Durham
- MPC
- Federal Statute
M’Naughten Rule
Person insane, if at time of act, he was laboring under
- DK nature & quality of the action
- DK what he was doing was wrong
Irresistible Impulse Rule
Insane if
- Acted
- lost power to choose between right and wrong
- actions completely beyond control
Product Test Rule
Product of mental disease/defect
1. was suffering
2. but for the mental disease
MPC Incapacitation Rule
As result of mental disease lacks capacity to
1. appreciate criminality or wrongfulness of conduct or (cognitive)
2. to conform conduct to law (volitional)
Federal Statute
At time of the offense by sever mental disorder or defect he was unable to appreciate
1. Nature & Quality of his conduct (cognitive)
2. Wrongfulness of his conduct
