Defenses Flashcards
What is the M’Naghten rule?
D does not know right from wrong or does not understand their actions (insanity defense)
What is the irresistible impulse rule?
D is entitled to acquittal only if, because of a mental illness, they were unable to control their actions to conform with conduct to the law
What is the Durham test?
But for mental illness, D would not have done the act
What is the ALI or MPC test?
Combination of: D does not know right from wrong or understand their actions + irresistible impulse
How is insanity raised?
D must raise the issue and prove insanity by a preponderance of evidence.
If someone threatens D by saying, “Tomorrow I’m going to kill you,” is D justified in attacking or killing that person in self-defense?
No. Justification depends on the immediacy of the threat.
T/F: Non-deadly force is justified where it appears necessary to avoid imminent injury or to retain property.
True. There is no duty to retreat.
T/F: For protection of home, deadly force may be used only to prevent a violent entry and person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent a personal attorney or prevent an entry to commit a felony.
True.
T/F: A person may use force to regain possession of property that he reasonably believes was wrongfully taken.
True BUT only if he is in immediate pursuit of the taker.
What is entrapment?
Entrapment exists only if the criminal design originated with the cop and D was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to contact by the govt.
While at a party, the defendant ran into an acquaintance. The acquaintance proceeded to ridicule the defendant about his looks. After an hour of verbal abuse by the acquaintance, the defendant suddenly took a champagne bottle that was on a nearby table and struck the acquaintance over the head, killing him instantly. At his arrest, the defendant told the police that voices inside his head told him to shut the acquaintance up, permanently.
The defendant was tried in a jurisdiction that follows the Model Penal Code test for insanity. At trial, the defendant’s lawyer introduced psychiatric testimony indicating that the defendant suffered from a mental illness.
Which of the following, if proved by the defense, would most likely relieve the defendant of criminal responsibility?
B - defendant could not appreciate the criminality of killing the acquaintance, or he could not conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
C - defendant did not know that killing the acquaintance was wrong, or he could not understand the nature and quality of his actions.
(B) Pursuant to the MPC, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if he suffered from a mental disease or defect and as a result lacked substantial capacity to either: (i) appreciate the criminality of his conduct; or (ii) conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
(C) is wrong because it presents a valid defense under the M’Naghten rule (not MPC), which provides for acquittal if a disease of the mind caused a defect of reason, such that the defendant lacked the ability at the time of his actions to either: (i) know the wrongfulness of his actions; or (ii) understand the nature and quality of his actions.
