Defenses / Justification Flashcards
Burden of Proofs
Affirmative defenses must be shown by preponderance (at least).
BUT putting any burden on Δ to disprove an element of an offense is reversible error. When the question is an element of a crime, burden always rests with the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Δ is guilty of each element of crime charged
Criminal Law - Excuse defenses
Mistake of Fact
Mistake of Law
Intoxication
Insanity
Necessity
Duress
Entrapment
Criminal Law - Justification defenses
Self-defense
Defense of others
Defense of property
Crime/felony prevention.
Arrest
Difference between criminal law justification and excuse defenses?
A defense is a justification if it renders the actor’s conduct not morally wrongful, whereas it is an excuse if it renders morally wrongful conduct not blameworthy.
Criminal Law Excuse - Mistake of Law
Generally, ignorance of law is no defense. May be a defense to crimes requiring knowledge
Criminal Law Excuse - Mistake of Fact
Mistake or ignorance of fact where Δ lacked the state of mind required for the crime
SI crimes: any mistake (reasonable/unreasonable).
GI crimes: reasonable mistakes only
For strict liability, mistake is not a defense (does not matter if Δ lacked the required state of mind)
Criminal Law Excuse - Intoxication
For SI crimes: Any intoxication (involuntary/voluntary) before forming the specific intent
For GI crimes: Involuntary intoxication only
Criminal Law Excuse - Insanity
Δ has the burden of raising insanity defense. Generally, must prove by preponderance of evidence
- M’Naghten rule: Δ presumed to be sane unless can prove that mental disease or defect of reason caused Δ at the time of offense to (i) not know what they were doing or (ii) knew what doing but not know it was wrong (god told them to).
- Irresistible impulse: Δ is not guilty where a mental defect made it impossible for him to control his conduct
- MPC test: As a result of mental disease or defect, Δ lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or conform his conduct to requirements of law (mix of above two)
- Durham test: Unlawful act would not have been committed “but for” the mental defect or disease
- Involuntary intoxication may be treated as mental illness; psychopathy & sociopathy are often not
- Partial defense – diminished capacity: As a result of a mental defect short of insanity, Δ did not have the particular mental state required
Criminal Law Excuse - Necessity
Δ reasonably believed (objectively—good-faith belief is insufficient) that commission of the crime was necessary to avoid an imminent and greater injury to society than that involved in the crime
Not a defense to killing a person or if Δ created the situation requiring the necessity.
Criminal Law Excuse - Duress
Δ reasonably believed that the only way to avoid threat of imminent death or great bodily harm by a human (cf. necessity where threat may be non-human) on him or family member is to commit the crime.
Not a defense to killing a person.
Criminal Law Excuse - Entrapment.
Δ must show that 1) the criminal design originated with law enforcement agents and 2) Δ was not predisposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by agents
No entrapment if by private citizen or if mere opportunity or material for crime provided by agent.
Criminal Law Justification - Self-defense
If Δ has a “reasonable” belief that he is in “imminent” danger of unlawful bodily harm, he may use “proportional force” (believed to be reasonably necessary) to prevent such harm, UNLESS he is the initial aggressor.
- This is a defense to murder only if threatened with death or great bodily harm.
- The aggressor can regain the right of self-defense upon 1) complete withdrawal perceived by the other party or 2) escalation of force by the victim of initial aggression.
- Imperfect self-defense: Honest but unreasonable belief that it was necessary to respond with unreasonable (deadly) force, or being the initial aggressor, can allow imperfect claim of self-defense
(Could mitigate a murder conviction to manslaughter (see § II-a-vi-1-c))
Criminal Law Justification - Defense of others.
If Δ reasonably believes another person is being unlawfully attacked, Δ is entitled to defend that person from attack to the same extent that person would be entitled to defend himself.
Deadly force allowed only if threatened with death or great bodily harm.
Criminal Law Justification - Defense of property.
Reasonable, non-deadly force is justified in defending property from theft, destruction, or trespass where Δ has a reasonable belief that the property is in immediate danger and no greater force is used (deadly force may not be used to merely defend property).
Felon EXCEPTION: Deadly force may be used when defender reasonably believes an entry will be made or attempted in his dwelling by one intending to commit felony therein.
Criminal Law Justification - Crime/felony prevention.
One is privileged to use reasonable force to prevent a felony, and may use deadly force to prevent a “dangerous felony” (BARRK) involving risk to human life.
