Defenses

Question 1

Insanity - General Rule

Answer 1

If the defendant is insane at the time of his criminal act, no criminal liability will be imposed.

Question 2

What are th four tests for Insanity?

Answer 2

1. M’Naughten Test
2. MPC Test
3. “Irrestible Impulse” Test
   
   1. Durham Rule

Question 3

The M’Naghten test focuses on…

Answer 3

The defendant’s reasoning abilities.

Under this test, a defendant is relieved of criminal responsibility upon proof that, at the time of commission of the act, he was laboring under such a defect of reason from a disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if
he did know it, not to know that what he was doing was wrong.

Disease of the mind includes all mental abnormalities, but
not a psychopathic personality.

Question 4

Under the irresistible impulse test

Answer 4

a defendant will be found not guilty where he had a mental disease that kept him from controlling his conduct.

Question 5

Under the Durham (or new hampshire) rule, also known as
the “product” rule…

Answer 5

a defendant is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect (meaning it would not have been committed “but for” the defect or disease).

Question 6

Under the Model Penal Code test (or substantial capacity)…

Answer 6

a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

Question 7

Some jurisdictions allow the defense of diminished capacity, which is

Answer 7

Short of insanity, to prove that as a result of a mental defect, the defendant did or did not have a state of mind that is an element of the offense.

When pleading diminished capacity, the defense is used to negate a specific mental state required for the particular crime.

Question 8

Intoxication

Answer 8

Voluntary or involuntary intoxication (whether brought about by alcohol or by narcotic drugs) is a defense to a crime when it negates the existence of an element of the crime.

Question 9

Voluntary Intoxication may be a valid defense if…

Answer 9

Under the prevailing view, voluntary intoxication may be a valid defense for a specific intent crime if it negates the requisite mental state, and may negate a purposeful or knowing mental state.

However, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to general intent crimes and will not negate recklessness, negligence, or strict liability.

Question 10

Involuntary Intoxication is a defense to a crime, even if…

Answer 10

It does not negate an element of the crime, under the same circumstances as insanity.

Question 11

Self-Defense

Answer 11

If a person has a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm, he may use that amount of force in self-defense that is reasonably necessary to prevent such harm, unless he is the initial aggressor.

Question 12

The initial aggressor can regain the right of self-defense in either of two ways:

Answer 12

1. Upon complete withdrawal perceived by the other party; or
2. Escalation of force by the victim of the initial aggression.

Question 13

Defense of a Third Person

(Majority and Minority Rule)

Answer 13

Generally, a person is justified in using force to defend a third person to the same extent that that person would be justified in using force to defend himself.

The majority rule focuses on the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief. If the defendant was mistaken, the defendant may nonetheless claim the defense of others.

The minority rule is that the defendant has no more right to use deadly force than the third person ostensibly being protected.

Question 14

Defense of Property

Answer 14

Reasonable, non-deadly force is justified in defending one’s property from theft, destruction, or trespass where the defendant has a reasonable belief that the property is in immediate danger and no greater force than necessary is used.

Question 15

Necessity

Answer 15

Reasonable force is justified to avoid imminent injury resulting from natural (non-human) forces or where an individual reasonably believes that his criminal conduct is necessary to avoid a “greater harm” that would result from compliance with the law (e.g., A kills B to save C and D).

This defense also protects military personnel acting within their duties and public executioners.

Question 16

Law Enforcement Defenses

Answer 16

A private citizen is privileged to use that amount of non-deadly force that reasonably appears necessary to prevent the commission of a felony or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace.

A private citizen may use the same amount of deadly force as a police officer only if a dangerous felony is involved and the person against whom he used the force is actually guilty of the crime.

Question 17

Duress

Answer 17

The defense of duress justifies criminal conduct where the defendant reasonably believes that the only way to avoid unlawful threats of great bodily harm or imminent death is to engage in unlawful conduct.

For duress, the threat comes from human forces rather than from forces of nature.

Question 18

Entrapment

Answer 18

The defense of entrapment exists where the criminal act is the product of creative activity originating with law enforcement officials and the defendant is in no way predisposed to commit the crime.

Question 19

Mistake of Fact is a defense where…

Answer 19

It negates the existence of a mental state required to establish a material element of the crime.

In other words, there would be no crime if the facts were such as the defendant thought them to be.

Question 20

Mistake of Law

Ignorance of the law is not a defense except:

Answer 20

• Where a statute proscribing the defendant’s conduct has not been reasonably made available or where the defendant has reasonably relied on a statute or judicial decision that is later overruled or declared unconstitutional;
• Where a defendant relies in good faith upon an erroneous official statement of law contained in an administrative order or in an official interpretation by a public officer or department; and
• Where some element of a crime involves knowledge or awareness of the law by the defendant.

Question 21

Consent of the victim is…

Answer 21

not a defense to a crime except when it negates a specific element of the offense, such as in rape or kidnapping.

Question 22

Condonation

Answer 22

Subsequent forgiveness by the victim is generally not a defense to the commission of a crime.