Defenses Flashcards
Legal Impossibility
Legal impossibility IS A DEFENSE to a crime. Legal impossibility occurs when the defendant’s acts would not have constituted a crime, even if the acts were as the defendant assumed.
Factual Impossibility
Factual impossibility is NOT A DEFENSE to an incomplete crime. Factual impossibility occurs when the defendant’s acts would have constituted a crime, BUT FOR a circumstance or fact unknown to the defendant (the defendant would have committed a crime if the facts were as the defendant assumed).
Mistake of Facg
A mistake of fact is a defense to a crime if it negates the state of mind required for the offense. For specific intent crimes, the mistake of fact may be unreasonable. For general intent, negligent, or reckless crimes, the mistake must be reasonable.
Mistake of Law
A mistake of law (not knowing the activity was illegal) is generally NOT a defense to a crime.
Insanity Defense–In General and Four Tests
A defense of insanity for a severe mental defect or disease will be analyzed under one of four tests, all of which consider the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense:
- M’Naughten
- MPC Test
- Irresistable Impulse
- Durham
A defendant will be acquitted of the crime if he meets the
applicable insanity test of the jurisdiction. Most states require the defendant to prove insanity by the preponderance of the evidence (or by clear and convincing evidence in federal court).
Insanity Defense–The M’Naghten Test
A mental disease or defect resulted in the defendant being: (a) unable to know the wrongfulness of his conduct; OR (b) unable to understand the nature and quality of his acts.
Insanity Defense–The Model Penal Code Test
As a result of a mental disease or defect, the defendant was: (a) unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct; OR (b) unable to conform his actions to the law.
Insanity Defense–Irresistable Impulse
The Irresistible Impulse Test: The defendant’s mental illness made him: (a) unable to control his actions; OR (b) unable to conform his actions to the law.
Insanity Defense–Durham Test
The defendant must show that his
Feb 2003, Essay 3
Feb 2008, Essay 3 Feb 2006, Essay 6
1 of 36 exams
• Voluntary intoxication (the ingestion of an intoxicating substance by the defendant’s own free will) is ONLY a defense to specific intent crimes if it negates the state of mind required to commit the offense.
• Involuntary intoxication (the ingestion of an intoxicating substance by force or without knowledge of its nature/effect) is a defense to all crimes if the defendant is deemed insane at the time of the offense. This defense is analyzed under the insanity test of the particular jurisdiction.
unlawful conduct was the product of mental illness.
Voluntary Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication (the ingestion of an intoxicating substance by the defendant’s own free will) is ONLY a defense to specific intent crimes if it negates the state of mind required to commit the offense.
Involuntary Intoxication
Involuntary intoxication (the ingestion of an intoxicating substance by force or without knowledge of its nature/effect) is a defense to all crimes if the defendant is deemed insane at the time of the offense. This defense is analyzed under the insanity test of the particular jurisdiction.
Justification: Self-Defense
Self-defense is a complete defense to a crime.
o The use of non-deadly force is justified when (1) the
defendant reasonably believes, (2) that he is in
imminent danger of being harmed.
o The use of deadly force is justified when (1) the
defendant kills another based on a reasonable belief, (2) that he was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury, AND (3) the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger.
The same rules for self-defense apply to the defense of others.
Justification: Self-Defense–Duty to Retreat
In a minority of jurisdictions, there is a duty to retreat before deadly force may be used. In those jurisdictions, the defendant must show that: (a) there was no opportunity to retreat; OR (b) retreat could not have been accomplished safely. There is NO duty to retreat if the defendant was attacked in her own home.
Justification: Self-Defense–Initial Aggressor
An aggressor (the person who starts the altercation) may only use force in self-defense if: (a) he withdraws from the altercation and communicates such intent; OR (b) the other person suddenly escalates the fight with deadly force and withdrawal is not possible.
Imperfect Self-Defense
Imperfect self-defense is a mitigating defense to murder that can reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter. Imperfect self-defense is applicable when the defendant kills another based on a good faith belief that (1) she was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury; AND (2) the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger; BUT (3) at least one of those beliefs was unreasonable. Only some courts allow imperfect self-defense to be applied to situations where the defendant was defending another person.
