Defenses Flashcards
Justification Defenses:
unlawful action was the right course of action under the facts and circumstances. (When the right choice is illegal conduct)
Types
Self-defense
Necessity
Justification Defenses- burden of proof
Burden of Proof
Majority: Burden shifts to prosecution to disprove self-defense
Burden of Production on D to bring forward some evidence that he acted in self-defense
Burden shifts back to prosecution to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt
Minority: Burden on D to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence
Once P has satisfied the requirements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Excuse Defenses
engaged in unjustified conduct, some disturbance in D mental process
Types
Insanity
Involuntary intoxication
Duress
Burden of proof - excuse defenses
D must establish some evidence to get an instruction
Majority (under federal and most state laws): Burden on D to prove by preponderance of the evidence (once the state has proved the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt)
Self-Defense (Justification)
Must establish honest and reasonable belief that D faces death or serious bodily harm from an imminent and unlawful threat and that force was necessary to prevent the harm
Self defense ( Deadly force)
Was the deadly force Necessary?
Initial aggressor: cannot claim self-defense.
Exception when there is a disproportionality when the victim escalated to a deadly reaction.
EX: Slap -> Gun
Exception when withdrawal from the conduct = drops initial aggressor status.
Self defense ( Deadly force) pt.2
Meet Force with like Force: To claim self-defense D must honestly and reasonably belief faced with death or serious bodily harm
Duty to Retreat:
Exception Castle Doctrine: when a person is attacked in their own home, they are permitted to use deadly force if it is apparently necessary
Eliminates any requirement to retreat from own home
Exception Stand your Ground Laws – (castle doctrine but everywhere) No duty to retreat.
Majority: do not require retreat + employ the exceptions.
Non-deadly Force
Must establish honest and reasonable belief that D faces physical injury from an imminent and unlawful threat and force is necessary to prevent harm
Doctrine of Imperfect Self-Defense
Honest and Reasonable Belief? -
where D honest but unreasonable (reckless or negligent) use of force nullifies the malice, the offense is modified down from murder to manslaughter.
Battered Woman Syndrome – more relaxed + flexible imminency requirement
Expert + Long Term Abuse
CL vs. MPC
CL: honest and reasonable belief that faced imminent threat
MPC: honest and reasonable belief that the use of force was immediately necessary (more flexible + easy)
NECESSITY (Justification)
D choosing to engage in criminal conduct to avoid a greater harm
NECESSITY (Justification) definition
D has to have an honest and reasonable belief of an imminent danger, that their actions will stop the danger, and that there is no legal alternative to stopping danger. Also have to have chosen the lesser evil and can’t cause the situation creating the necessity.
Duress: excuse)
D acts criminally to implement the will of the coercer in order to prevent another harm
Elements @ CL Duress
Another person threatens to kill/grievously injure D, his family, or a close friend
D reasonably believes it is a genuine threat of imminent harm and no reasonable means of escape from the threat exist
Actor was not at fault in exposing himself to the threat (can’t create the risk)
When duress is not a defense
Never a defense to an intentional killing unless used to excuse the underlying felony for a felony murder prosecution. (ie can only be a defense to the underlying felony)
EX: if someone threatens to kill you unless you kill – No duress excuse because it can only be other lesser harm that can be excused.
EX: If someone accidentally dies in the commission of a felony under duress – Yes duress excuse because you were committing a felony
Voluntary Intoxication Common law rules
General Intent Crimes = never a defense
Decision was to get intoxicated and any conduct that results is reckless.
Specific Intent = may be a defense to formulating the additional SI purpose
Only culpable for the general intent portion
Strict Liability = never a defense
Burglary = specific intent (G = breaking and entering) (S = felony committed inside)
Breaks into neighbor’s house to watch Netflix — He will be charged with breaking and entering
Too drunk to know which house is his — no defense bc he did not have the intent to commit the AR and VI is not a defense to that
Involuntary Intoxication
True affirmative defense
2 ways D can be involuntarily intoxicated
Duress
Not any type of coercion will suffice – peer pressure
D no choice
Mistake
Not knowing that it was intoxicating
D can’t know that the combo drugs could combine to cause adverse reaction (and should not have been aware)
Note: Competence – whether D is competent AT TIME OF TRIAL, in order to stand trial
Mb able to consult with an attorney and rationally understand the proceedings
Insanity (excuse)
How to determine D was legally insane at the time of the commission of the crim
McNaughten Test ( cl )
In order to establish legal insanity at time of AR, D needs to show that he suffered from a severe mental disease or defect and as a result, he is unable to know the nature and quality of his act OR what he was doing was wrong
Jurisdiction decides legal v. moral standard
They usually go together. If you think its morally wrong you likely know its legally wrong.
“unable to know” language requires complete incapacitation (either unable to understand its wrong or not)
+ Irresistible Impulse Test
An ADDITION to the M’Naghten Test
D will not be found guilty where, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he is incapable of controlling the impulse to commit a crime, even when he knows what he is doing and that it is wrong
MPC Test insanity
D is relieved of criminal responsibility when as a result of mental illness he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct OR as a result of mental illness, he lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law
Durham Test MPC
D is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect
Puts everything on expert testimony.
