Defenses Flashcards
Mistake of Fact Rule
- Ignorance or mistake concerning a matter of fact will affect criminal liability only if:
- it shows D lacked the intent required for the crime; and
- the mistake was objectively reasonable.
Mistake and Specific Intent Crimes
If mistake shows absence of a necessary “specific intent,” it need not be reasonable.
List of Specific Intent Crimes:
- larceny, other property crimes (intent to perma- nently deprive or defraud)
- burglary (intent to commit offense)
- attempt and conspiracy (intent to complete the target offense)
- any offense defined as doing something “with intent to . . . ”
Major Crimes that are NOT specific intent:
- Arson
- Rape
Mistake of Fact Analysis Under Modern Statutes
- Mistake of fact requires acquittal whenever it shows the lack of whatever mental state is required for the crime.
- e.g. In larceny prosecution where the D took property mistakenly believing it was theirs, there is no intent to deprive another of that person’s property.
Ignorance or mistake of law
ignorance that the criminal law makes one’s conduct a crime is not a defense.
Mistake of Law Rule
- Mistake of law is a defense if:
- D’s belief in the lawfulness of his conduct was objectively reasonable; and
- the defendant relied upon:
- a statute later held invalid;
- a judicial decision later overruled; or
- an official interpretation of the law by a public official.
- the defendant relied upon:
- D’s belief in the lawfulness of his conduct was objectively reasonable; and
What Mistake of Law can never be based on
- A defense of mistake of law cannot be based on advice of counsel.
- Exception:
- The mens rea of a crime requires knowledge that you’re breaking the law. If so, advice of counsel may show the lack of mens rea.
Mistake of Law and Crimes that require awareness of the law
- If a crime requires awareness of the law, even unreasonable ignorance or mistake that shows lack of awareness will require acquittal.
Insanity
M’Naghten Rule
Defendant can be acquitted only if:
- he had a serious mental disease or defect;
- this caused a defect in his reasoning abilities; and
- as a result, he did not either:
- understand the nature of the act he was doing; or
- understand that his act was wrong.
Analytical approach for insanity defense
- Assume the situation was as the defendant perceived it, in his own crazy mind.
- Ask under those circumstances, would he have been legally entitled to do what he did?
- If so, but only if so, he is entitled to acquittal.
M’Naghten Rule and Morally Permissible Conduct
Some jurisdictions would say a mentally impaired defendant should be acquitted under M’Naght- en if the evidence shows the person believed the conduct was morally permissible.
M’Naghten Rule and Irresistable Impulse
- Under the usual interpretation of the M’Naghten Rule, an insanity defense cannot be based upon loss of control (irrisestable impulse)
Defenses where loss of control may be a valid defense
- statutory versions of insanity based on the Model Penal Code
- the “irresistible impulse” version of insanity used in some jurisdictions.
Irresistible Impulse Test (VA and other jurisdictions)
The defendant will be found not guilty if he can show:
- He understood his actions, but,
- Due to a disease of the mind,
- He was unable to control or restrain these actions.
VA Insanity Defense
- In Virginia, the defendant may choose to use either the M’Naghten or irresistible impulse test. Not both.
VA Insanity Defense
Notice to the State
- D must give commonwealth’s attorney:
- Written notice,
- of D’s intent to raise an insanity defense,
- at least 60 days before trial.
VA Insanity Defense
Burden of Proof
- The defense has the burden of proving to the satisfaction of the jury that the defendant was insane.
- Note that this is not typical BoP language
Involuntary Intoxication as a defense
Treated as mental illness and insanity test applied.
Involuntary Intoxication Elements
Intoxication is involuntary if either:
- D did not know substance was intoxicating; or
- D consumed substance under duress.
Voluntary Intoxication as a Defense
Defendant should be acquitted only if the crime requires proof of a specific intent and the intoxication shows he lacked that intent.
Voluntary Intoxcation as Applied to Homicide Analysis
- can “disprove” premeditation
- cannot “disprove” malice aforethought and reduce murder to manslaughter
Voluntary Intoxication Modern Statutory Analysis
Voluntary intoxication requires acquittal if:
- crime requires mental state higher than recklessness; and
- intoxication shows lack of this mental state.
Voluntary Intoxication Minority Approach
- Voluntary intoxication is completely irrelevant to criminal liability.
- Thus D cannot argue lack of intent because of intoxication.
- SCOUTS held this is constitutionally permissible
