Defenses Flashcards
Self-Defense
Self-defense may be used in response to imminent threats of unlawful force.
Self-Defense (Non-Deadly Force)
Non-deadly force may be used if D reasonably believes it necessary to protect himself from imminent unlawful force
Self-Defense (Deadly Force)
D may use deadly force to protect against an attack that threatens imminent death or great bodily harm.
Self-Defense (Retreat)
Under the Majority rule, a D need not retreat before using deadly force, UNLESS the D is the initial aggressor and safe retreat is available. In a minority of jurisdictions, the victim is required to retreat unless they are in their home, or victims of rape or robbery.
Self-Defense (Initial Aggressor)
A D cannot assert self defense as a justification unless: 1) the D withdraws, 2) V escalates a minor dispute into a deadly altercation, and 3) safe retreat is unavailable.
Imperfect Self-Defense
Some states recognize an imperfect self defense doctrine where a murder may be reduced to manslaughter even though the D was at fault in starting the altercation if he unreasonably but honestly believed in the necessity of responding with deadly force.
Defense of others
D has right to defend others if she reasonably believes that the person assisted has the legal right to use force in his own defense
Defense of Property
Deadly force may never be used. If D is on the property then deadly force can be used in self-defense.
Insanity
Insanity is a defense to all crimes, including strict liability crimes. D carries the burden of proof. – MAID
Insanity - M’Naghten Test (Right/wrong test)
at the time of his conduct, as a result of the mental defect the defendant lacked the ability to know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature or quality of his actions
Insanity - MPC/ALI Test
D lacked the “substantial” capacity as a result of his mental disease or defect to either (1) appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or (2) to conform his conduct to the requirements of law
Insanity - Irresistible Impule
the D, as a result of a mental defect, could not control the impulse to commit the crime
Insanity - Durham Rule
was the D’s conduct a “product” of a mental illness (easiest to satisfy)
Voluntary Intoxication
(includes addicts and alcoholics) → defense to specific intent crimes (i.e. if crime requires purpose (intent) or knowledge), BUT not a defense to general intent crimes
Involuntary Intoxication
(Intoxicant was not knowingly and voluntarily ingested)→ is a defense to all crimes, including the (no intent) crimes of strict liability, once it is established that the intoxication caused the actus reus.
Mistake of Fact
- Reasonable mistake of fact – can disprove any state of mind (but no defense to strict liability crimes)
- Unreasonable mistake of fact – can disprove specific intent only
- Factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt. If everything went as the defendant planned (i.e. without the mistake), he would have committed the crime!
Mistake of Law
NO defense that D believed her activity would not be a crime, even if that belief was reasonable and based on the advice of an attorney
Legal Impossibility
can be a defense to attempt if it negates the intent requirement. Legal impossibility exists when the act the defendant intends to accomplish is not proscribed by criminal law, even though the defendant believes it is illegal.
Factual v Legal Impossibility
ask if everything D intended to do was true, would it have been a crime yes = factual impossibility. No = legal impossibility.
Infancy
A. Under the age of 7, there is no criminal liability
B. Under 14 there is a rebuttable presumption of no criminal liability
Duress
defense to all crimes EXCEPT criminal homicide (but under certain circumstances can reduce homicide from murder to manslaughter)
Entrapment
very limited defense. D has a predisposition to commit the crime, and government induces.
Constitutional Challenges (Vagueness)
criminal statute must (1) give fair warning, i.e. person of ordinary intelligence must be able to discern what is prohibited, and (2) no arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement
Constitutional Challenges (Double Jeopardy)
prohibits a second trial after the D has been convicted of the “same offense” (or lesser included offense)
- Does not apply if second crime requires an element which is not an element of the first crime and vice versa.
- Court can impose multiple punishments at a single trial where the punishments are for two or more statutorily defined offenses specifically intended by legislature to carry separate punishments, even though the offenses arise from the same transaction and constitute the same crime.
