Defenses Flashcards
Deadly
Defendant may use deadly force in self-defense if:
- He reasonably believes he is facing a threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm; and
- he is not the initial aggressor
Exception - he can be the initial aggressor and still use deadly force if (i) he only used non deadly force and the person escalated it, (ii) he w/drew after his initial aggression and he communicated that withdrawal.
- Common Law: Retreat is required unless he cannot retreat in complete safety.
Majority & Michigan - Retreat is NOT required
Michigan Rule on Self-Defense
Stand Your Ground
If an individual isn’t committing (or hasn’t committed) a crime, she may use deadly force against another individual anywhere she has a legal right to be with no duty to retreat if she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the immenent death/bodily harm/sexual assault to herself or others.
The same applies for non deadly force.
Michigan Rule on Self Defense
Presumption
A rebutable presumption exists that an individual who uses deadly force
has an honest and reasonable belief that death or great bodily harm is imminent
if, among other things, the person against whom deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or committing a home invasion
and is in the dwelling when the force is used.
Michigan Rule on Self-Defense
Burden
Once evidence of self-defense is introduced, the prosecutor bears the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
A minority of jurisdictions recongize an
“imperfect self-defense”
which mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant either:
(1) was unreasonable in believing that deadly force was needed to prevent the attack, OR
(2) is the initial aggressor (provided he was NOT unreasonable in believing his life was in danger or in the amount of force he used).
MI - does not recongize the imperfect self-defense. However, sometimes the malice element may be missing from second degree in any case.
Nondeadly Force
- A defendant may use nondeadly force if it is reasonably necessary to protect against present or immediate use of unlawful force against himself or another.
- There is no duty to retreat for nondeadly force
- One can use nondeadly force when one is in “hot pursuit” of another to prevent theft.
Defense of others
A defendant may use force to protect others the same as he could to protect himself.
Mistake about use of deadly force
- A reasonable mistake is a complete defense
- An unreasonable mistake is not but in a minority of states, the Defendant may be able to claim “imperfect self-defense” and mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter.
Three Insanity Defenses
- M’Naghten Test
- Irresistible Impluse Test
- MPC and Michigan Test
M’Naughten Test
(Majority Test)
This is a pretty tough test to meet. Defendant must prove:
- He suffered a disease of the mind that
- caused a defect of reason and
- as a result he lacked the ability to
a. know the wrongfulness of the actions, or
b. understand the nature and quality of his actions
ASK - what if the facts were as the defendant believed them to be? If the defendant would be committing a crime if the facts were as he believed them to be, insanity will NOT be a defense.
Irresistible Impluse Test
Defendant must prove:
- He was unable to control his actions, or
- conform his conduct to the law
MPC
and Michigan Test
Defendant must show that he lacked capacity to either
- appreciate the criminality of his conduct or
- Conform his conduct to the requirements of the law
Michigan also recongizes guilty BUT mentally ill where the defendant was imparied at the time he committed the offense but not enough to deprive him of his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of law. He can be sentenced and incarcerated as if he had been found guilty of the offense.
INCOMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL
(while insanity looks at the sanity of the defendant at the time of the crime, incompetency examines whether the defendant is sane at the time of the legal proceeding.
The defendant is considered insane if he is unable to
- understand the nature of the proceeding being brough against him OR
- assist his lawyer in the preparation of his defense.
DUE PROCESS - Mandates that a hrg will be held to declare the def incompetent and in many jurisdictions, he is committed until he regains competence.
NOTE - def may NOT be given the death penalty if he is incampable of understanding the nature and purpose of the punishment.
Intoxication
TWO TYPES
Voluntary and Involuntary
Involuntary (only results when def takes intoxicating substance)
- without knowledge of its nature; or
- under direct duress imposed by another; or
- pursuant to medical advice while being unaware of the intoxicating effect
It is treated the same as mental illness, so if the defendant meets the jursidiction’s test for insanity, he will be acquitted.
Voluntary - Common Law
It is ONLY a defense to specific intent crimes - (not malice, general intent, or strict liability crimes) and it is only a defense if the defendant was unable to develop the specific intent to complete the crime.
Intoxication
Michigan Approach
Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific intent crime if the following are met:
- Defendant legally obtained and properly used medication or other substance and
- he did not know or reasonably should not have known that he would become intoxicated.
so NOT a defense when the alcohol causing the intoxication was voluntarily consumed.
Infancy
Common Law: If defendant is under 7, he will not be liable. If he is under 14, there is a presumption he is not liable. If he is older then 14, he is treated the as an adult
Modern Approach: Most states abolished presumptions and simply state children cannot be prosecuted until they are 14. Many states have juvenile courts.
Mistake OF FACT
Look to see if the mens rea is negated by the mistake
- Specific intent crime - any mistake of fact (even an unreasonable one) that negates the specific intent will be a defense so long as it is in good faith believed.
- General Intent or Malice - Only a reasonable mistake of fact will be a defense
- Strict Liability - Mistake of fact is NOT a defense
Mistake of Law
- Ignorance of the law is generally not a defense (and this includes a defendant being ignorant of how a crime is defined)
- Exceptions (Narrow!)
- The statute specifically makes knowledge of the law an element of the crime
- The statute was not published or made reasonably available
- The defendant acted with reasonable reliance on a statute or judicial decision (usually from the highest court)
- The defendant reasonably relied on an erroneous official statement of law from the “charged law” w/the responsibility for interpreting, administering or enforcing the law.
NOTE - reliance on lawyers advice is no defense unless it negates the mental state
Necessity (Choice of Evils)
If defendant reasonably believes his or her criminal conduct was necessary to prevent a greater harm, necessity will be a defense unless
- A defendant causes the death of another to protect mere property; or
- Defendant was at fault in creating the situation
Duress
This arises when the defendant performs a crime because he had a reasonable fear that he did not perform the crime either himself or a third person would suffer imminent death or serious bodily injury.
This “reasonable fear” arises because of a threat of or use of force by another.
One cannot use duress as a defense to homicide (such instruction can be refused)
Entrapment
(a) If someone in law enforcement induced the defendant to commit a crime, he may try to use the very narrow defense of entrapment.
(b) Majority rule: The “Predisposition Test”
1. The criminal design originated with the government and
2. The defendant was a person who was not predisposed to commit the crime (he was more or less an “innocent” person).
Michigan (and minority)
Rule on Entrapment
The test is whether
- The police engaged in impermissible conduct that would induce a law-abiding person to commit a crime in similar circumstances, or
- The police engaged in conduct so represensible it cannot be tolerated.
* This is an objective, NOT subjective test. It is unconcerned with the predisposition of the defendant.*
