Defenses Flashcards
(14 cards)
Ignorance or Mistake of Fact General Defense
Only a defense if:
- it shows D lacked the intent required for the crime (think specific intent crimes; arson and rape not specific intent); and
- mistake was objectively reasonable.
If specific intent crime, then mistake does not have to be reasonable.
Ignorance or Mistake of Law General Defense
Generally not a defense (unless specific mens rea specifies that you know you are committing crime), unless
- D’s belief was reasonable and
- D relied upon a statue later held invalid/judicial decision overruled/OFFICIAL interpretation by a public official (not private counsel or someone low on the totem pole like a cop)
Insanity Defense
M’Naghten Rule:
D did not understand the nature of the act or that the act was wrong
Irresistible Impulse: impulse that D cannot resist
Durham/New Hampshire test: but for mental illness, crime would not have been committed
MPC: combination of M’Naughten and irresistible impulse
Intoxication Defense for General Crimes
INVOLUNTARY intoxication (D did not know substance was intoxicating or if he consumed it under duress) is treated as mental illness and insanity test applied
VOLUNTARY intoxication: D should be acquitted if the crime requires proof of a specific intent and the intoxication shows he lacked that intent
For crimes that require recklessness, a person who would have been aware of the risk if he had not been intoxicated acts recklessly with regards to the risk.
Minority jx: voluntary intoxication is completely irrelevant to criminal liability
Infancy Defense
No prosecution if D is under 7
Rebuttable presumption against prosecution if D is under 14
Prosecution allowed if D is 14 or older
Entrapment Defense
Majority Jx (subjective): Entrapment if:
- D was not predisposed to commit the sort of crimes charged; and
- police officers created the intent to commit the offense in her mind
Minority Jx (objective): Entrapment if:
-Police activity would cause a reasonable and unpredisposed person to form the intent to commit the crime
Necessity (Choice of Lesser Evils) Defense
Generally, a defense that:
- D believed that committing the crime would prevent an imminently threatened harm;
- D believed this threatened harm would be greater than the harm that would result from the commission of the crime; and
- these beliefs were reasonable.
Necessity not a defense if:
- D wrongfully created the situation making the choice necessary; or
- D killed a third party to avoid his own death
Note: D charged with escape from exploding prison will have good necessity defense only if D attempted to surrender to authorities as soon as immediate threat was over
Duress or Coercion Defense
A defense that D was compelled to commit the crime by a threat that if he did not so, the threatening person would do:
-imminent bodily harm to D or a third person
Exception: Duress is not a defense to a crime that consists of an intentional killing (but can be a defense for unintentional such as felony-murder or involuntary manslaughter)
Self-Defense General Rule
A defense that D believed that:
- he was in imminent danger of being physically harmed by another person;
- the force was proportional to threat; and
(3) these beliefs were reasonable.
Aggressor Rules: person who starts a fight cannot use force in self-defense during a fight. BUT, aggressor regains right to use force in self-defense during the fight if (a) he clearly withdraws from the fight or (b) gives notice of his desire to withdraw.
Self-Defense (Deadly Force)
D can use deadly force only if she reasonably believed:
- she was threatened with imminent death or serious bodily injury; and
- deadly force was necessary to prevent that harm to her.
“Need to retreat” Minority Jx: applies only if retreat is possible with complete safety, but no duty to retreat if attacked in one’s home
“need to retreat” General rule: feasibility of safe retreat is a factor in determining whether deadly force was reasonably necessary to prevent harm
Imperfect Defense in Homicide Cases: a D charged with murder who actually but unreasonably believed killing was necessary in self-defense is not entitled to acquittal, but should be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder
Defense of Other Persons
It is a defense that:
- D believed that another person was threatened with IMMINENT unlawful physical harm by a third person;
- D believed that the force she used was necessary to prevent the harm; and
- these beliefs were objectively reasonable
Majority Jx: availability of defense turns on whether it reasonably appeared to D that the person she aided was in the right
Defense of Property
It is a defense that force was used in the reasonable belief that it was necessary to prevent the unlawful interference with real or personal property.
Limits:
- only nondeadly force can be used to defend property
- force can be only used to prevent the interference, and not to regain the property, except in immediate pursuit
Use of force to effectuate arrest: Police officers
Non-deadly force: if reasonably necessary to effectuate an arrest.
Deadly force: to prevent felon’s escape and the police officer reasonably believes the felon threatens death or serious bodily injury.
Bystander summoned by police to assist in arrest has same authority to use force (even if it turns out the officer was exceeding his authority)
Use of force to effectuate arrest: private citizens
Same as a police officer with the following exceptions:
Non-deadly force: if crime was actually committed and private citizen had reasonable grounds to believe crime was committed
Deadly force: only if the person was actually guilty of the offense for which the arrest was made
