Defenses Flashcards
Insanity. What is? What are the test?
Legal insanity is a defense to all crimes, regardless of the intent requirement
- Depending on jurisdiction, one of four tests is used to determine whether D was so mentally ill when he committed a crime that he should be entitled to acquittaI:
- M’Naghten
- Irresistible Impulse
- MPC
- Durham
Legal insanity test: M-Naghten
M’Naghten - D doesn’t know right from wrong and doesn’t understand the nature of his action
>> Due to a mental disease or defect, at the time of the offense D lacked the ability to know the wrongfulness of his conduct or understand the nature and quality of his act.
Legal insanity test: Irresistible Impulse
Irresistible Impulse - D acted due to an irresistible impulse and cannot conform his conduct to the law
>> Due to a mental illness, D was unable to control his actions or conform his conduct to the law
Legal insanity test: MPC
MPC - combination of M’Naghten & Irresistible Impulse
>> As a result of D’s mental disease, D lacked the capacity to either appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law
Legal insanity test: Durham (New Hampshire Rule)
Durham - but for his mental illness, D would not have acted
>> D’s conduct was the product of a mental illness
Infancy defense
Infancy - a defense to criminal liability for minors
- Under 7 years old - no criminal liability
- 7-14 years old - rebuttable presumption against criminal liability
Diminished capacity
Diminished capacity- a defense based on D’s mental defect
- Available if D can show that he has some mental defect short of insanity that prevented him from forming the mental state required for the crime
- Usually limited to specific intent crimes
Due process & D’s mental condition during trial
Due process & D’s mental condition during trial - Due Process Clause forbids D from being tried, convicted, or sentenced if, as a result of his mental disease or defect, D is unable to either:
- Understand the nature of the proceeding, or
- Assist his lawyer in the preparation of his defense
Capital punishment Mental deficiency at trial
Capital punishment - D cannot be executed if he is incapable of understanding the nature and purpose of theInt punishment at the time of execution
Intoxication defense types
Voluntary intoxication - a defense to specific intent crimes
Involuntary intoxication - a defense to all crimes
Voluntary intoxication
Voluntary intoxication - a defense to specific intent crimes
- Voluntary intoxication = D chose to consume an intoxicant
- >> Alcoholics and addicts are voluntarily intoxicated
- Not available if D becomes intoxicated in order to commit the crime (i.e., ‘‘liquid courage’’)
- Only a defense to specific intent crimes
Involuntary intoxication
Involuntary intoxication - a defense to all crimes
- Arises when D was given an intoxicant without her knowledge or forced to consume an intoxicant
- Requirements - an intoxicant is taken involuntarily if taken:
- Without knowledge of its nature,
- Under direct duress imposed by another person, or
- Pursuant to medical advice without notice of its intoxicating effect
- May be treated as a mental illness if, b/c of the intoxication, D satisfies the relevant jurisdiction’s insanity test
Self-defense defense (non-deadly force)
Non-deadly force - may be used if D:
- No fault – D is not at fault (i.e., not the initial aggressor); and
- Reasonable belief of unlawful force- D reasonably believes it necessary to protect himself from imminent unlawful force.
- Allowable force - the amount of force permitted depends on the nature of the provoking offense; generally, it must be proportionate
There is a duty of retreat in self-defense?
No duty to retreat
Deadly force, when can be used?
Deadly force - may be used if D:
- No fault - D is not at fault (i.e., not the initial aggressor); and
- Reasonable belief of death or great bodily harm- D reasonably believes he is confronted with unlawful force that threatens imminent death or great bodily harm
- No duty to retreat under majority rule
When is self-defense by an initial aggressor
Self-defense by an initial aggressor- available if either:
- Initial aggressor effectively withdraws before the need for self-defense arises and communicates his desire to do so, or
- Victim of the initial aggression suddenly escalates a minor dispute into a deadly altercation
Defense of others
Defense of others - same rules apply as for self- defense
- D can defend another if D reasonably believes the person he is protecting could have legally defended himself.
Use of force by police when effectuate arrest
Police use of force to effectuate arrest:
- NDF - permissible to reasonably effectuate arrest
- DF - permissible to:
- Prevent the escape of a fleeing felon; and
- Fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious bodily harm
Citizen use of force to effectuate arrest
-
NDF - permissible if:
- Crime was actually committed; and
- Reasonable belief the person to be arrested committed it
-
DF - permissible to:
- Prevent the escape of a person who committed a felony; and
- The fleeing felon threatens human life
Use of force and crime prevention
Crime prevention - i.e., using force to prevent a crime from occurring
- NDF - permissible to prevent a serious breach of the peace
- DF - common law and modern rules differ:
- >> Common law - permissible to prevent commission of felony
- >> Modern – permissible to:
- Terminate or prevent a dangerous felony; and
- Felony threatens a serious risk to human life
Defense of dwelling (use of force)
Defense of dwelling
- Non-deadly force - allowed to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or attack on one’s dwelling
- Deadly force - may be used if one reasonably believes:
- Force is necessary to prevent attack on oneself or others by a person who made or attempted violent entry, or
- Force is necessary to prevent entry by a person who intends to commit a felony in the dwelling
Defense of property (non-dwelling)
Defense of property (non-dwelling) - deadly force not allowed
- Non-deadly force may be used if reasonably necessary to defend against unlawful interference with possessions or trespass on property
- Need to use force must reasonably appear imminent
>> I.e., force not permitted if request to desist is sufficient
Recovery of property (use of force)
Recovery of property - force is not allowed to regain property wrongfully taken, unless one is in immediate pursuit of the taker
- E.g., D steals A’s purse; A can only use reasonable force to recover purse if she is immediately pursuing D
Necessity defense
Necessity- valid defense if D believed his conduct was reasonably necessary to avoid an imminent and greater injury to society
- Objective standard - D’s commission of the crime must be reasonably necessary; good faith alone is insufficient
- Exceptions - necessity is not available if either:
- Crime committed results in the death of another, or
- D caused the events giving rise to the necessity
Duress defense
Duress - a valid defense to a crime D committed under reasonable belief that the crime was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm to D or a member of D’s family
- E.g., someone points a gun at D and threatens to kill him if he does not rob a bank
- Exception- duress is not a defense to homicide crimes
Consent defense
Consent - consent of victim is generally not a defense, but may be available if it negates an element of the offense
- Never available for certain offenses (e.g., statutory rape)
- Requirements- must be established that:
- Consent was voluntarily and freely given;
- Party was legally capable of consenting; and
- No fraud was involved in obtaining consent
Entrapment (defense)
An available defense to criminal liability if a law enforcement agent has induced D to commit a crime.
A very narrow defense; rarely effective b/c it is negated by any predisposition on D’s part
- As a result, it is unlikely to be a correct MBE answer
Entrapment (defense) requirements
- Criminal design originated with law enforcement
- Criminal design= idea or plan for the crime
- D was not otherwise predisposed to commit the crime
- >> D must have had no predisposition to commit the given crime prior to his contact with law enforcement
- >> Law enforcement providing an opportunity for a person to commit a crime is not, by itself, entrapment
- E.g., undercover officer buying drugs from dealer; officer merely provided opportunity for D to make a sale
Mistake of law or fact (defense)
Mistake of law - almost never a defense Lacking awareness or knowledge that an act constitutes a crime, even if reasonable, is not a defense to that crime
- Exceptions to general rule - very rare, but can arise where either:
- Reasonable reliance on an invalid statute
- Mistake or ignorance negates an element of a crime requiring knowledge of the law
Mistake of fact (defense) general rule
Mistake of fact - available as a defense only if it negates a requisite intent element (i.e., mens rea) for the crime.
Note - mistake includes ignorance
Mistake of fact depending on the type of crime (intent)
- Crime with Specific intent
- Any mistake of fact is a defense
- Malice & general intent
- Only a reasonable mistake of fact is a defense
- Strict liability (i.e., no intent)
- Mistake of fact is never a defense
