Defenses Flashcards
What are the eight defenses? (MIND VISE)
- Mistake
- Insanity
- Necessity
- Duress
- Voluntary Intoxication
- Infancy
- Self-Defense
- Entrapment
Insanity
indispensable Requirement
Defendant must have mental disease or defect
M’Naghten Test
majority–insanity
The defendant must prove that he either:
(1) did not know that his conduct was wrong, OR
(2) did not understand the nature of his conduct
MPC Test
insanity
Defendant must establish that he lacked the substantial capacity to either:
(1) appreciate the criminality of his conduct (cognitive option), OR (2) conform his conduct to the requirements of law (volition option)
Insanity
NY
This rule is more lenient that the M’Nagten rule but not as generous as MPC
A person is not criminally responsible for conduct if, at the time of the conduct:
(1) Cognitive test: defendant lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either:
(a) the nature and consequences of his conduct, or
(b) that his conduct was wrong
(2) Notice: A defendant must notify the prosecutor of his intention to raise the insanity within 30 days of entering a “not guilty” plea
Insanity v. Incompetency
Insanity: The issue is whether the defendant was insane at the time of the crime. If he was, the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity
Incompetency: 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 preparation of his defense. If either (a) or (b) is established, trial is postponed until the defendant regains competency
Voluntary Intoxication
common law
(1) can be a defense to specific crimes ONLY
(2) cannot, therefore be a defense to malice, general intent, or strict liability crimes
(3) generally requires such severe prostration of the faculties that the defendant cannot form the requisite specific intent
Voluntary Intoxication
NY
(1) can be a defense to intent crimes and knowledge crimes, if the intoxication prevents the defendant from forming the required state of mind
(2) cannot be a defense to crimes of recklessness, negligence, or strict liability
Infancy
common law
(1) if, at the time of the crime, the defendant’s age is less than 7, prosecution is not allowed
(2) If, at the time of the crime, the defendant’s age is less than 14, there Is a rebuttable presumption against prosecution
(3) If, at the time of the crime, the defendant’s age is 14 or older, prosecution is allowed.
Infancy
NY
(1) If the defendant is under 13, criminal prosecution as an adult is not allowed;
(2) If the defendant is 13, criminal prosecution as an adult is allowed for second degree murder.
(3) if the defendant is 14 or 15, criminal prosecution as an adult is allowed for serious cries against persons or property
(4) If the defendant is 16 or older, criminal prosecution as an adult is allowed for ANY crime
Mistake of Fact
common law
Whether mistake of fact is an defense depends on underling mental state so:
- Specific Intent: ANY mistake of fact (even an unreasonable one) will be a defense
- Malice or General Intent: only a reasonable mistake of fact will be a defense
- Strict Liability: mistake of fact will never be a defense
Mistake of Fact
NY
Mistake of fact will be a defense where it negates the required mental state:
- Intent, Knowledge, Recklessness: any mistake of fact (even a reasonable one) is usually a defense
- Negligence: only a reasonable mistake of fact is a defense
- Strict Liability: mistake of fact is never a defense
Mistake of Law
NY and common law
Generally not a defense UNLESS the statute specifically makes knowledge of the law an element of the crime
Use of Nondeadly Force (Self-Defense)
A defendant may use nondeadly force in self-defense if he
(1) reasonably believes such force is necessary
(2) to protect against an immediate use
(3) of unlawful force against himself
Use of Deadly Force (Self-Defense)
NY Distinction
A defendant may use deadly force in self-defense, if he reasonably believes he is facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm UNLESS:
(i) he is the first aggressor (Initial Aggressor Rule and NY) (ii) with intent to cause physical injury to another, he provoked the use or imminent use of force (NY only) (iii) the use of imminent use force is pursuant to an unlawful combat agreement
