Defenses Flashcards

Question

Justification Necessity CL rule elements

Answer 1

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

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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

Answer 4

.... 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.

Answer 5

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

Answer 6

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

Answer 7

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.

Answer 8

so does his defense of duress!

Answer 9

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

Answer 10

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

Answer 11

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

Answer 12

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

Answer 13

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

Answer 14

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

Answer 15

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

Answer 16

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

Answer 17

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

Answer 18

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

Answer 19

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

Answer 20

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.

Defenses Flashcards

(45 cards)