Defenses

Question 1

Insanity (M’Naghten Test)

Answer 1

A defendant is relieved of criminally responsible if:

• due to mental disease or defect,
• 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.

Question 2

Intoxication

Answer 2

• Voluntary intoxication and/or drugged condition are not defenses to any criminal charge, except:
  
  • When the defendant tries to reduce a charge of first-degree murder to third-degree murder
• ​First degree is reduced to third degree when:
  
  • ∆ was so overpowered by drugs and/or alcohol that she lost control of her faculties and was incapable of forming the specific intent to kill required for a first-degree murder conviction

Question 3

Necessity

Answer 3

The conduct is justified if:

1. the actor was faced with a clear and imminent harm, not a debatable or speculative harm;
2. the actor could reasonably expect his actions to be effective in avoiding this greater harm;
3. no legal alternative exists that would have been effective in abating the harm; and
4. the legislature has not acted to preclude the defense by a clear and deliberate choice regarding the values at issue.

Question 4

When is Necessity unavailable?

Answer 4

When ∆ was reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation

Question 5

Self-Defense

Answer 5

The Commonwealth has burden of proof – must prove BaRD that self-defense does not apply

Question 6

If ∆ uses deadly force, 3 ways Commonwealth can prove self-defense doesn’t apply

Answer 6

1. Where ∆ either:
   
   • Did not believe he was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury or of becoming the victim of a violent crime; OR
   • actually did believe he was in such danger, but was objectively unreasonable in that belief;
2. where, in the same encounter in which the defendant claims self-defense the defendant showed his intent to cause death or serious bodily injury and by that conduct provoked the use of deadly force against him; or
   • However, ∆ still may claim self-defense if, even though he was the initial aggressor or he escalated the force to deadly force, he then
     
     1. Withdrew and made known that his further intentions were peaceful; and
     2. victim pursued him and renewed the fight
3. where the defendant knew he could avoid using deadly force with complete safety by doing one of the following three things, but uses deadly force anyway:
   
   • Retreating;
     
     1. However, ∆ need not retreat:
        
        1. From a place that is his dwelling, unless he was the initial agreesor; or
        2. from his workplace unless he is attacked by someone he knows also works there;
   • surrendering possession of something to a person with a claim of right, but not a robber; or
   • complying with a demand to stop an action he has no legal duty to take.

Question 7

Duress

Answer 7

Available where ∆ was coerced into doing the criminal act through use of threat, use of unlawful force

Question 8

Entrapment

Answer 8

∆ is entied to an acquital where he proves, by a preponderance of the evidence that:

1. police or their informants/agents perpetrated an entrapement; and
2. ∆’s conduct occured in response to an entrapment

Question 9

When is entrapment perpetrated?

Answer 9

When police, or their informants/agents, induce or encourage ∆ to engage in conduct constituting a crime by either:

1. Making a knowingly false representation that induces the belief that such conduct is not prohibitted; OR
2. employing methods of persuasion/inducement which create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by a person other than one who is ready to commit it

Question 10

Who bears burden of proof for entrapment?

Answer 10

Defendant – preponderance of the evidence

∆ must prove the police or their agents engaged in entrapment behavior

Question 11

Mistake of Fact

Answer 11

∆ may offer a defense based on his alleged ignorance or mistake as to a fact he claims negates his guilt for the offense

To defeat this claim, Commonwealth may try to prove:

1. ∆ actualy knew what he needed to know and ∆’s claim is false
2. ∆ mistaken belief or ignorance was unreasonable; or
3. ∆’s ignorance or mistake as to the particular fact does not negate the required mens rea