Defenses Flashcards
What is the “non slayer” defense to felony murder in NY?
NY provides a limited affirmative defense to felony murder if the defendant can prove each of the following four things:
a) the defendant did not kill the victim;
b) the defendant did not have a deadly weapon;
c) the defendant had no reason to believe that his co-felons had deadly weapons; and
d) the defendant had no reason to believe that his co-felons intended to do anything that was likely to result in death.
What are the different tests for the affirmative defense of insanity?
Indispensible requirement: the defendant must have a mental disease or defect.
There are two major tests used to gauge whether a mental disease or defect renders a defendant legally insane:
M’Naghten Test (majority test - purely cognitive): the defendant must prove either: (a) did not know that his conduct was wrong; or (b) did not understand the nature of his conduct.
MPC Test (cognitive OR volitional): the defendant must establish he or she lacked **substantial capacity **to either: (a) appreciate the criminality of his conduct (cognitive option) OR (b) confrom his conduct to the requirements of law (volitional option).
What is the definition of insanity in New York?
Cognitive test: defendant must prove he or she lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either:
a) the nature and consequences of his conduct, or
b) that his conduct was wrong.
Notice: A defendant must notify the prosecutor of his intention to raise the insanity defense within 30 days of entering a “not guilty” plea.
What does it mean to be incompetent to stand trial?
The issue is whether, at the time of trial, the defendant cannot either:
a) understand the nature of the proceedings against him, or
b) assist his lawyer in the prpearation of his defense.
If either factor is established, trial is postponed until the defendent regains competency.
What is the common law approach to voluntary intoxication? What is the New York approach to voluntary intoxication?
Common law approach:
1) Can be a defense to specific intent crimes only
2) Cannot, therefore, be a defense to malice, general intent, or strict liability crimes.
3) The defense of intoxication generally requires such severe “prostration of the faculties” that the defendant cannot form the requisite specific intent.
**New York: **
a) can be a defense to intent crimes and knowledge crimes, if the intoxication prevents the defendant from forming the required state of mind.
b) cannot be a defense to crimes of recklessness, negligence, or strict liability.
What is the defense of mistake? How is the defense treated in New York?
There are two types of mistake - mistake of fact and mistake of law.
Mistake of Fact: Whether a defendant’s mistake of fact will be a defense depends upon the mental state for the crime and whether the mistake is reasonable or unreasonable. Accordingly, if the mental state for the crime is:
a) specific intent, any mistake of fact (even an unreasonable one) will be a defense.
b) malice or general intent, only a reasonable mistake of fact will be a defense.
c) strict liability, mistake of fact will never be a defense.
In New York, a mistake of fact will be a defense if the mistake negates the required mental state. This means that:
a) for crimes of intent, knowledge or recklessness, any mistake of fact (even an unreasonable one) will be a defense.
b) for crimes of negligence, only a reasonable mistake of fact is a defense.
c) for strict liability crimes, a mistake of fact is not a defense, no matter how reasonable.
Mistake of Law: In both the common law and in New York, mistake of law is generally not a defense, except when the statute specifically makes knowledge of the law an element of the crime (but this is highly unlikely).
When may a defendant use non-deadly force in self defense?
A defendant may use nondeadly force in a self-defense if it is (1) reasonably necessary (2) to protect against an immediate use (3) of unlawful force against himself.
When may a defendant use deadly force in self defense?
A defendant may use deadly force in self-defense, if he is facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm at no fault of his own.
What is the “initial aggressor” rule?
A defendant may not use deadly force if he is the initial aggressor - that is the person who started the fight. But, the initial aggressor can “regain” his right to use deadly force in self-defense if:
a) He withdraws from the fight and communicates that withdrawal to the other person OR
b) the victim suddenly escalates a non-deadly fight into a deadly one.
New York distinction: In New York, the initial aggressor must withdraw before using deadly force in self-defense, even if the other party suddenly escalates a nondeadly fight into a deadly fight.
What is the retreat rule?
In some states, a defendant is required to retreat before using deadly force in self defense.
Majority Rule: Retreat is not required.
New York/Minority Rule: Retreat is required, unless - 1) the defendant cannot retreat in complete safety, or 2) the defendant is in his home (the “castle exception”).
What happens if a defendant is mistaken about the need to use unlawful force in self-defense?
If it is a reasonable mistake, this is a complete defense.
If it is an** unreasonable mistake:**
New York/Majority Rule: no defense
Minority/MPC Rule: mitigates, but does not exonerate.
“Imperfect Self-Defense”: An unreasonable belief in the need to use deadly force in self-defense will mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter.
When can the defendant use force to prevent a crime or to defend others?
Nondeadly force may be used, if reasonably necessary, to preven any serious breach of the peace.
Deadly force may only be used to prevent a felony risking human life.
Defense of Others: A defendant may use force, even deadly force, to protect others just the same as he could use it to defend himself.
When can deadly force be used in defense to property?
Generally, deadly force may not be used to defend property.
Dwellings: An occupant may use deadly force inside her dwelling when:
a) an intruder has gained entry in a violent manner AND
b) the occupant reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is ncessary to prevent a personal attack on herself or someone else in the dwelling.
When can one use force to resist arrest? What is the NY distinction on this matter? When can law enforcement use deadly force?
Resisting Arrest: If the defendant knows or reasonably should know that the person perfomring the arrest is a police officer -
1) Majority Rule: if the arrest is unlawful, the defendant may use non-deadly force to resist the arresting officer.
2) ** New York Rule:** Force may not be used to resist an arrest, even an unlawful one, unless the arresting officer uses excessive force.
Use of Deadly Force by Law Enforcement: An officer may use deadly force only when doing so is reasonable under the circumstances.
When is necessity (or “justification” in NY) allowed as a defense? What are the limitations?
The conduct that is otherwise criminal is justifiable if the defendant reasonably believes that the conduct was necessary to prevent a greater harm.
Limitations: The necesity defense is unavailable if:
1) the defendant causes the death of another person to protect property; or
2) the defendant is at fault in creating a situation that creates a choice of evils.
When can a defendant claim duress?
If the defendant was coerced to commit a crime because of a threat, from another person, of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a close family member, his conduct is excused.
Limitation: Duress cannot be a defense in homicide.
**New York: **Duress is an affirmative defense to all crimes, including homicide.
When can a defendant use entrapment as a defense?
If a defendant believes that the government unfairly tempted him to commit a crime, he may claim entrapement. To prevail on the defense, the defendant must prove that:
a) the criminal design originated with the government, and
b) the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime.
New York: Entrapment is an affirmative defense, and the prosecution may introduce evidence of the defendant’s past criminal acts in its direct case. However, the defendant is entitled to an entrapment charge if a reasonable view of the evidence supports the charge, even if the defendant’s testimony is inconsistent and he denies the crime charged.
