Defenses Flashcards
Justification
what is it?
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.”
Excuse
what is it?
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
What does the MPC do to both excuses and justifications?
MPC combines both!
Justification examples
Necessity
Self-defense
Defense of others
Defense of property and habitation
Use of lawful force
Excuse examples
Duress
Insanity
Diminished capacity
Intoxication (in very limited circumstances)
Mistake of fact
Mistake of law (in very limited circumstances)
Justification
Self-Defense rule (SD)
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
Justification
SD Reqs/Elements
To claim the CL SD….
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
Justification
SD Reqs/Elements
2nd element elaborated
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
Justification
SD Reqs/Elements
3rd element elaborated
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
Justification
SD Reasonable Belief to use force (sub element)
A person reasonably but incorrectly believes that the force he uses is necessary to protect
self against imminent harm
–> use of force is justified
Justification
SD
Unreasonable Mistake or Belief
where you D wants to mitigate murder to manslaughter…apply what 2 standards?
Objective Standard and Subjective Standard!
Justification
SD
Unreasonable Mistake or Belief
Objective Standard
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!!
Justification
SD
Unreasonable Mistake or Belief
Subjective Standard
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!!!
Justification
SD
Unreasonable Mistake or Belief
Subjective Standard on Battery Wife Syndrome
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)
Justification
SD
MPC 3.04 SD
Justified if D believes that that force is immediately necessary to protect self against….
the unlawful force of another such as serious bodily harm, death, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat
Justification
SD
MPC 3.04 SD Limitations
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)
Justification
CL Defense of Others (DofO)
Majority Parallel Doctrine
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
Justification
CL Defense of Others (DofO)
Minority Jurisdiction rule
Require that the D was factually correct in perceiving that defense was necessary.
Justification
SD
CL Duty to Retreat rule
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
Justification
Use of force by Law Enforcement
CL General rule
LEO’s are allowed use of whatever force to secure an arrest
some states still use force against any fleeing felon
Justification
Use of force by Law Enforcement
CL specified rule –> However, LEO’s cannot resort to deadly force unless…
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
Justification
Use of force by Law Enforcement
MPC rule: permits deadly force for law enforcement when….
….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.
Justification
CL Defense of Real Property
Rule: a person is not entitled to use deadly force….
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.
Justification
Necessity
CL basic rule
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)
Justification
Necessity
CL rule elements
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
Justification
Necessity
CL Rule more specific on killing another person
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.
Justification
Necessity
MPC Necessity rule
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
Justification
CL Necessity on Escape from Intolerable Prison Conditions
D will sometimes be able to use this defense when…
…. 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.
Justification
Necessity
Political Necessity
just know that the imminent harm/danger must be reasonably certain to occur where D do not have time to exercise other means
Justification & Excuse
Duress
What is it?
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
Justification & Excuse
Duress
CL rule
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.
Justification & Excuse
Duress
what happens when D’s duress is lifted?
so does his defense of duress!
Justification & Excuse
Duress
MPC Duress
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
Excuse
Insanity
CL M’Naghten Test
(Majority Test and focuses on cognitive disability)
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
Excuse
Insanity
CL Irresistible Impulse Test
(focus on volitional conduct & adds 3rd prong to M’Naghten)
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
Excuse
Insanity
CL Durham (products) Test
(focuses on causation)
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
Excuse
Insanity
ALI/MPC Test
(focuses on combination of cognitive and volition)
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
Excuse
Insanity
CL Hinckley Test
(focuses on cognitive disability)
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
Excuse
Insanity
GBMI Test (guilty but mentally ill)
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
Excuses
CL Diminished Capacity Test
what is it?
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
Excuses
CL Diminished Capacity Test
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
Excuse
Intoxication
CL Voluntary Intoxication rule
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
Excuse
Intoxication
MPC 2.08 Intoxication rule
- Voluntary intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negates an element of the offense:
- 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
Excuse
Intoxication
CL Involuntary Intoxication
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.
