Defenses

Question 1

Justification

what is it?

Answer 1

denies wrongfulness of particular conduct that would normally constitute an offense.
Society deems that “we would want others to do the same thing in the same or similar situation.”

Question 2

Excuse

what is it?

Answer 2

conduct is wrongful but circumstances exist such that: (1) a person is not morally blameworthy; or (2) a person could not have been deterred.
Actions that are excused do not involved desirable acts/actions; they are more along the line of understandable acts/actions

Question 3

What does the MPC do to both excuses and justifications?

Answer 3

MPC combines both!

Question 4

Justification examples

Answer 4

Necessity

Self-defense

Defense of others

Defense of property and habitation

Use of lawful force

Question 5

Excuse examples

Answer 5

Duress

Insanity

Diminished capacity

Intoxication (in very limited circumstances)

Mistake of fact

Mistake of law (in very limited circumstances)

Question 6

Justification

Self-Defense rule (SD)

Answer 6

At CL, the D is justified in using force upon another if he reasonably believes he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm by the aggressor
Imminent = right at the moment

Question 7

Justification

SD Reqs/Elements

To claim the CL SD….

Answer 7

1) D must have been resisting the present or imminent use of unlawful force.

2) D’s force must not be excessive (“proportionality requirement”)

3) D was not the initial aggressor unless:
He was a non-deadly aggressor confronted w/ the unexpected use of deadly force.
and he withdrew after his initial aggression and other party continued

Question 8

Justification

SD Reqs/Elements

2nd element elaborated

Answer 8

2) Force must not be excessive (“proportionality requirement”)
Deadly force – Force intended to cause death or grievous bodily injury; only use against deadly force of aggressor

Question 9

Justification

SD Reqs/Elements

3rd element elaborated

Answer 9

3) Aggressor – D can’t be the aggressor unless:
He was a non-deadly aggressor confronted w/ the unexpected use of deadly force.
AND he withdrew after his initial aggression and other party continued

Question 10

Justification

SD Reasonable Belief to use force (sub element)

Answer 10

A person reasonably but incorrectly believes that the force he uses is necessary to protect

self against imminent harm
–> use of force is justified

Question 11

Justification

SD

Unreasonable Mistake or Belief

where you D wants to mitigate murder to manslaughter…apply what 2 standards?

Answer 11

Objective Standard and Subjective Standard!

Question 12

Justification

SD

Unreasonable Mistake or Belief

Objective Standard

Answer 12

Requires the fact finder to view the circumstances surrounding the accused at the time he used force from the standpoint of a reasonable person (standard)

If yes–> then murder mitigated to manslaughter!!

Question 13

Justification

SD

Unreasonable Mistake or Belief

Subjective Standard

Answer 13

Whether the circumstances are sufficient to induce in the accused an honest and reasonable belief that he must use force to defend himself against imminent harm

If yes–>then mitigates to manslaughter!!!

Question 14

Justification

SD

Unreasonable Mistake or Belief

Subjective Standard on Battery Wife Syndrome

Answer 14

Creates in the mind in the spouse the feeling that there is no means of escape and turns to what would normally be a reasonable self-defender into a slightly unreasonable one (in the eyes of the jury and others)

Question 15

Justification

SD

MPC 3.04 SD

Justified if D believes that that force is immediately necessary to protect self against….

Answer 15

the unlawful force of another such as serious bodily harm, death, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat

Question 16

Justification

SD

MPC 3.04 SD Limitations

Answer 16

D has a duty to retreat whenever possible and cannot use deadly force
must use every opportunity to retreat

D cannot be the aggressor

MPC SD cannot be used to resist arrest (even if arrest is unlawful)

D cannot use deadly force to defend home unless owner of property is home (ie. trap gun)

Question 17

Justification

CL Defense of Others (DofO)

Majority Parallel Doctrine

Answer 17

a right to use defensive force in defense of others if the person believes that the other is in danger of imminent harm.
○ Requires that, if the other person was there, he would have been justified in using self defense.
○ Doctrine also does not consider any special relationship bw the victim and 3rd party D

Question 18

Justification

CL Defense of Others (DofO)

Minority Jurisdiction rule

Answer 18

Require that the D was factually correct in perceiving that defense was necessary.

Question 19

Justification

SD

CL Duty to Retreat rule

Answer 19

under the circumstances, a person must safely retreat to avoid killing the aggressor since deadly force is unnecessary
○ Castle Doctrine EXCEPTION: Even when a duty to retreat otherwise exists–> a person is not required to retreat from his/her home or at work
○ Co-habitant EXCEPTION: if you live with a co-habitant that is the aggressor–> then you don’t have a duty to retreat

Question 20

Justification

Use of force by Law Enforcement

CL General rule

Answer 20

LEO’s are allowed use of whatever force to secure an arrest
some states still use force against any fleeing felon

Question 21

Justification

Use of force by Law Enforcement

CL specified rule –> However, LEO’s cannot resort to deadly force unless…

Answer 21

they have probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony and poses a threat to the LEO’s or to the public if left at large

* Court also urges police to give a warning prior to use of force.
* The force used must also be proportional to the threat posed by the fleeing suspect.
	○ The force used must be necessary

Question 22

Justification

Use of force by Law Enforcement

MPC rule: permits deadly force for law enforcement when….

Answer 22

….necessary to avoid a substantial risk of death or serious injury to innocent persons
most states require a probable cause that the intended victim poses a danger to the LEO or innocent people.

Question 23

Justification

CL Defense of Real Property

Rule: a person is not entitled to use deadly force….

Answer 23

for the protection of property by using trap guns when the D is not present.

D’s presence at the time of the burglary in his property requires discretion to see whether he can use deadly force
○ However, if a burglary is committed in a violent manner, –> a person may use deadly force.

Question 24

Justification

Necessity

CL basic rule

Answer 24

the defense raised when D has been compelled to commit a criminal act because of an emergency due to a non-human event (natural force)

Question 25

Justification

Necessity

CL rule elements

Answer 25

1) the harm or danger is imminent

2) where there is no opportunity to avoid injury without having to commit a crime

3) And the act to avoid the injury outweighs the harm thats committed

Question 26

Justification

Necessity

CL Rule more specific on killing another person

Answer 26

D makes a choice from free will that arises from threat of greater harm that stem from natural forces.

However, saving one’s life is not necessity, which is never a justification or excuse for murder in CL.
○ Only killing another in Self Defense is necessity a justification.

Question 27

Justification

Necessity

MPC Necessity rule

Answer 27

Conduct that the actor believes to be necessary to avoid the harm to himself or another is justifiable, provided that:

 The harm to be avoided is greater than the actor’s conduct

 And cannot be used if actor recklessly placed himself in the situation OR if D was negligent

Question 28

Justification

CL Necessity on Escape from Intolerable Prison Conditions

D will sometimes be able to use this defense when…

Answer 28

…. when escaping a prison to avoid greater harms

Some factors to be weighed when determining whether necessity is available:
1. Prisoner is faced with a specific and immediate threat of death, forcible sexual attack or substantial bodily injury.
2. Either no time to make complaints, or complaints have fallen on deaf ears.
3. No opportunity to resort to the courts
4. No evidence of violence used towards prison personnel or other “innocent” persons in the escape; and

OR Prison immediately reports to proper authorities when reaching a position of safety from immediate threat.

Question 29

Justification

Necessity

Political Necessity

Answer 29

just know that the imminent harm/danger must be reasonably certain to occur where D do not have time to exercise other means

Question 30

Justification & Excuse

Duress

What is it?

Answer 30

Duress arises or always involves coercion from another human; a Δ was deprived of free will because of the imposed duress caused by humans

Compared to necessity and lesser evils–> it always involve a response to a human threat rather than a natural danger

Question 31

Justification & Excuse

Duress

CL rule

Answer 31

A person is excused from a crime they committed if
1. they were forced to do so under an imminent threat of death or seriously bodily harm,
i. Imminent-immiedate
2. the threat is continuous,
3. and there is no reasonable opportunity to escape;
however rule will never excuse the killing of innocent person.

Question 32

Justification & Excuse

Duress

what happens when D’s duress is lifted?

Answer 32

so does his defense of duress!

Question 33

Justification & Excuse

Duress

MPC Duress

Answer 33

Requires the test to be made by “a person of reasonable firmness in his situation” to see if they would have been able to resist (subj standard)

Anyone can coerce you, including family members

Does not require imminence or deadly threat

Does not apply to those that put themselves recklessly or negligently in situation

Question 34

Excuse

Insanity

CL M’Naghten Test

(Majority Test and focuses on cognitive disability)

Answer 34

D did not know either
1. Nature and quality of his act, or
2. OR Know what he doing was wrong, that is right from wrong
□ Wrong is based on a moral/societal level, not a legal level

Question 35

Excuse

Insanity

CL Irresistible Impulse Test

(focus on volitional conduct & adds 3rd prong to M’Naghten)

Answer 35

A person is insane if, at the time of the offense:

a. He acted from an irresistible and uncontrollable impulse
b. He was unable to choose between the right and wrong behavior
c. His will was destroyed such that his actions were beyond his control

Question 36

Excuse

Insanity

CL Durham (products) Test

(focuses on causation)

Answer 36

But for mental illness, Δ is not responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect
§ defense hinges on the testimony of the experts regarding whether or not Δ had a mental disease or defect in order for jury to make a moral judgement
§ Prof issue with this test is that it doesn’t give a definition of what mental disease is to help jury find moral judgement

Question 37

Excuse

Insanity

ALI/MPC Test

(focuses on combination of cognitive and volition)

Answer 37

a person is not responsible for his criminal conduct if, at the time of the conduct, as the result of a mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to either:
1. Appreciate the “criminality” (or “wrongfulness”) of his conduct

2. OR to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law
         (volitional component of the test)
	 Here you will need a pro mental official to construe mental capacity

Question 38

Excuse

Insanity

CL Hinckley Test

(focuses on cognitive disability)

Answer 38

As a result of severe mental d/d, the D is able to appreciate nature
and quality of his act or wrongfulness of conduct

This strips away the volitional req

Question 39

Excuse

Insanity

GBMI Test (guilty but mentally ill)

Answer 39

Because the jury rule out to find a mental defect–> D enters a treatment facility until cured–>then D goes to prison to serve his sentence

Question 40

Excuses

CL Diminished Capacity Test

what is it?

Answer 40

Diminished capacity refers to a D’s abnormal mental condition, short of insanity.

D can benefit by diminished capacity rule because it mitigates his charge

There are two forms of diminished capacity

Question 41

Excuses

CL Diminished Capacity Test

Answer 41

a. Mens rea – Evidence of mental abnormality is offered by D to negate an the mens rea element, the specific intent of the offense.

b. Partial responsibility – This form partially excuses or mitigates D’s guilt even if he has the requisite mens rea for the crime. the jury mitigates this

It is recognized now in only a few states, and only for the crime of murder, to mitigate the homicide to manslaughter

Question 42

Excuse

Intoxication

CL Voluntary Intoxication rule

Answer 42

Voluntary intoxication (knowingly ingests a substance) is never a valid defense and only allowed in
certain situations where D was unable for form the specific intent required

(not general intent!!!)

ex. knowingly consuming drugs or alcohol cannot be raised

Question 43

Excuse

Intoxication

MPC 2.08 Intoxication rule

Answer 43

1. Voluntary intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negates an element of the offense:
2. OR if the actor, due to self-induced intoxication, is unaware of a risk of which he would have been aware had he been sober, such unawareness is immaterial –> then recklessness establishes an element of the offense

Question 44

Excuse

Intoxication

CL Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 44

Intoxication is “involuntary” if D is not to blame for becoming intoxicated. It may result from:
* Coerced intoxication

• OR Intoxication by innocent mistake as to the nature of the substance being consumed; (i.e.: laced drink)
• OR Unexpected intoxication from a prescribed medication provided the D did not purposely take more than the prescribed dosage
• OR “Pathological intoxication,” a temporary psychotic reaction, often manifested by violence, which is triggered by consumption of alcohol by a person with a pre-disposing mental or physical condition.
  • The defense only applies if D had no reason to know that he was susceptible to such a reaction.
  • If D was involuntary intoxicated and render D insane –> allows for defense.