Exculpation Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is the difference between justification and excuse defenses?

A

Justification accepts responsibility but denies that the actions were bad; excuse admits the actions were bad but does not accept responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Is self-defense a complete defense, in general?

A

Yes, self-defense is a complete defense that arises out of necessity = privilege to violate the law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are the traditional elements of self-defense?

A
  1. There must have been a threat, unlawful and immediate, actual or apparent, of the use of deadly force against the defender, 2. The defender must have believed that he was in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm, 3. The belief must have been honestly entertained and objectively reasonable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the traditional approach to the imminence requirement of self-defense?

A

The threat must be imminent (“immediate danger”)…fear of future death or bodily harm is not sufficient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How does the MPC treat the imminence requirement?

A

Slightly relaxed requiring that the force be “immediately necessary on the present occasion”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Is the traditional objective approach to self-defense completely objective?

A

No, the standard invites some individualization through “in the defendant’s situation”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is imperfect self-defense?

A

A person who holds an honest but unreasonable belief in the need to use deadly force will not be convicted of murder but voluntary manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

How does the MPC approach the standard for self-defense?

A

Completely subjective —> need only show that he honestly believed that the deadly force was necessary to protect himself against death, serious injury, or a crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the MPC’s caveat to the subjective approach to self-defense?

A

If the belief was wrong and recklessly/negligently formed, he may be convicted of the grade of homicide requiring only a reckless or negligent intent = unreasonable belief may be a defense in a homicide requiring purpose or knowledge but not recklessness or negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What are the 2 exceptions to the right to use self-defense?

A

The duty to reatreat and the initial aggressor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What are the 2 components to the duty to retreat?

A

A defendant only has a duty to first retreat if he resorts to deadly force and he actually knows that he can retreat with complete safety

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the castle exception?

A

A person does not have the duty to retreat if attacked in his home by an intruder or a guest, but courts are divided on the duty to retreat for co-occupants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Does the MPC embrace the retreat rule?

A

Yes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the initial aggressor exception?

A

The right to self-defense is not available to one who is the initial aggressor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Can the initial aggressor regain his right to use self-defense?

A

By communicating to his adversary that his intent to withdraw and does so in good faith

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How does the MPC treat the right to regain self-defense?

A

An initial aggressor can respond in self-defense when they meet excessive force to their initial force

17
Q

What is the narrow formulation of who the initial aggressor is?

A

An affirmative unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences

18
Q

What are the traditional, common law elements of duress?

A
  1. One is coerced to violate the law by another person, 2. By the use or threat of death or serious bodily harm, 3. Which is imminent, 4. Against his person or the person of another, 5. Of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm
19
Q

Under the traditional elements of duress, what is the standard?

A

Objective approach —> a man of ordinary fortitude and courage

20
Q

What are the revised elements of duress?

A
  1. The defendant engaged in conduct because he was coerced to do so by another person, 2. By the use or threat to use unlawful force, 3. Against his person or the person of another, 4. Which a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist
21
Q

Can duress excuse a homicide?

A

Not usually

22
Q

Is the MPC in accord with the revised approach?

A

Yes

23
Q

What is the MPC necessity defense?

A

Conduct is justifiable provided that the harm sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented

24
Q

What is the traditional test for evidence of voluntary intoxication?

A

Evidence of voluntary intoxication can be used to negate specific intent but not general intent

25
Q

What is the minority approach to evidence of voluntary intoxication?

A

Evidence of intoxication cannot be used to negate any mens rea…except to show that there was not premeditation and deliveration or there was a mistake

26
Q

How does the MPC approach evidence of intoxication?

A

Evidence can be admitted if relevant to negate purpose or knowledge but not recklessness