Defenses Flashcards
Responsiblity Defenses
- Competency
- Insanity
- Diminished Capacity
- Intoxication
Four Tests for Insantiy
- M’Naghten Test
- Model Penal Code Test
- “Irresistible Impulse” Test
- Durham Rule
M’Naghten Test
A defendant is relieved of criminally responsible if:
- due to mental disease or death,
- he was uable 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.
Model Penal Code Test
A defendant is not criminally responsible if:
- 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.
“irresistible impulse” test
A defendant will be found not guilty where he had a mental disease that kept him from controlling his conduct.
Durham Rule
A defendant is not criminally responsible if:
- his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect (meaning it would not have been committed “but for” the defect or disease).
Competency
prevents defendants from being tried, convicted, or punished unless they have the sufficient present ability to consult counsel with a reasonable and rational understanding of the proceedings.
Diminished Capacity
- As a result of mental defect,
- ∆ did or did not have a state of mind that is an element of the offense
Voluntary Intoxication
Is not a complete defense, but may reduce a ∆’s level of culpability by negating a requisite specific intent element, like intent to steal or premeditation and deliberation
Voluntary Intoxication does not negate…
- Recklessness,
- Negligence,
- or Strict Liability
AND is not a defense to general intent crimes
Involuntary Intoxication
Is a defense, even if it doesn’t negate an element of the crime
Justification
- Self-Defense
- Defense of Third Person
- Defense of Property
- Necessity
- Duress
Self-Defense
- Requires an honest and reasonable judgement
- that it is necessary to use force to defense against an unlawful, imminent threat of bodily harm
Proprotional Force
∆ must use force in proportion to that threatened
Deadly Force
Deadly force is permitted only in response to an imment threat of death
OR
grevious bodily injury
Unclean Hands
First agressor may not claim self-defense because the first aggression results in “unclean hands”
Modern jurisdictions: agressor’s right to self-defense is restored if first victim responds to aggression w/ excessive force
Retreat Rule
person who did not initiate conflict has no duty to retreat in the face of a deadly attack
When is defense of 3rd person justified?
- When it’s necessary to defend 3rd person
- who is facing an unlawful imminent threat
- of bodily harm
Reasonableness of ∆’s belief
(majority rule)
∆ must reasonably believe that 3rd person was being unlawfully attacked
Reasonableness of ∆’s belief
(minority rule)
∆ has not more right to use deadly force than the 3rd person being protected
Defense of Property
Reasonable non-deadly force is justified to defend one’s property from:
- theft,
- destruction,
- or trespass where ∆ has reasonable belief the property is in immediate danger
NO use of deadly force for this one
Necessity
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
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
NOT a defense to murder
Other Defenses
- Entrapment
- Mistake of Fact
- Mistake of Law
- Consent
- Condonation
