Justification and Excuse Flashcards
Do justifications and excuse refute elements of a prosecutors case?
No. They suggest considerations that negate liability even when all elements of the offense are present.
E.g., claims of self-defense and insanity offer reasons to bar conviction even when the defendent undoubtedly killed someone intentionally.
Justification (concept)
What I did under the circumstances was right/not wrong (permissible) although usually wrong.
- If the circumstances happened again, we would want you to make the same choice.
- I.e., we accept responsibility but deny that it was bad.
- Ex: self-defense
Excuse (concept)
“What I did was wrong, but I am not a responsible agent.”
* I.e., I admit that what I did was bad but don’t accept full, or even any, responsibility.
* Ex: immaturity, victim of circumstance, insanity
Self-defense as a justification
When use of force against an aggressor is necessary to protect the actor from serious bodily harm, that action is justified—because it was the right thing to do.
But the use of force does not have to be truly necessary; self-defense is available when the actor reasonably believes defensive force to be necessary.
What is the fundamental difference between justification and excuse?
Whereas a justification claim generally focuses upon an act (i.e., D’s conduct), and seeks to show that the result of the act was not wrongful, an excuse centers upon the actor (i.e., D) and tries to show that the actor is not morally culpable for his wrongful conduct.
Thus, an excuse defense “is in the nature of a claim that although the actor has harmed society, he should not be blamed or punished for causing harm,” while a justification sense is in the nature of a claim that although the actor caused an otherwise socially harmful outcome, it was not in fact socially harmful given the circumstances”
Specialized defenses (“offense modifications”) (definition and examples)
These defenses pertain to just one or a few crimes. E.g., “legal impossibility” is a C/L defense to the crime of attempt; in some justifications “abandonment” or “renunciation” is a defense to the crimes of attempt and conspiracy; and “Wharton’s Rule” is a defense peculiar to the crime of conspiracy
What’s a common feature of crime-specific defenses (“offense modifications”)?
They authorize acquittal of a D, even though his conduct satisfies the elements of the offense, when the underlying purpose for prohibiting the conduct is negated by the conditions that constitute the defense
When a D asserts a justification defense, and yet also claims a mistake of fact, is D entitled to be acquitted if she was mistaken regarding the facts that would justify her conduct?
D is entitled to be acquitted on the basis of self-defense if her mistake of fact regarding the threat was reasonable. **However, she will be convicted of some form of criminal homicide if her mistake was unreasonable. **
D’s defense still constitutes a justification—not an excuse—despite the mistake of fact so long as D genuinely and reasonably believed that she was in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury, and that deadly force was necessary to repel the threat.
AL and excuse
If accomplice aids and abets criminal behavior successfully undertaken, accomplice is liable.
If accomplice aids and abets criminal behavior successfully and justifiably undertaken (i.e., justification defense is successfully raised by D), then accomplice is not liable.
If accomplice aids and abets criminal behavior successfully undertaken, but the doer of harm may be acquitted on the basis of insanity or some other excuse, accomplice is still liable for the crime committed by the excused. Why? Excuses are non-delegable!
Justifications are universalized, whereas excuses are ____
Individualized
When does defensive force qualify as “deadly”?
When one knowingly creates a substantial risk of inflicting great bodily harm.
Shooting in the direction of another person always qualifies as a use of deadly force — even when one aims at the feet or merely fires a warning shot!
Which threats are “deadly”?
General rule: any threat to inflict great bodily harm (such as a threat to maim) qualifies, even if the harm might not be life-threatening.
E.g., in Goetz, D was certain that none of the youths had a gun but was afraid of being maimed. If reasonable, such a fear is ordinarily sufficient to justify the use of deadly force in response.
I.e., “deadly” threat does not necessarily mean threat of losing one’s life. A threat of grievous bodily harm, if reasonably perceived, constitutes a deadly threat and permits the use of deadly force in self-defense if such force is also reasonable. Both the D’s fear and the use of defensive force must be reasonable.
Self-defense: deadly force reasonableness requirement
Qualifications to the objective test
MPC standard: asks whether D’s conduct involves a “gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation”. Thus, MPC partially individualizes the objective standard
C/L: most jurisdictions adopt some form of ‘hybrid’ standard: jury must judge the D by the standards of the reasonable person…in the ‘situation’
Self-defense
Which features of D’s background, experiences, and personality should be taken into account in determining whether their assessment of a threat and response to it were “reasonable”?
Considered:
* Physical infirmity
* Past experience
Not considered:
* Mental disability
* Culture
Self-defense
Where reasonableness is required for total exculpation, how should the law deal w/ a person who holds an honest but unreasonable belief in the need to use lethal force?
Prevailing C/L view: no defense of self-defense under the objective test
MPC: person who kills with honest but unreasonable belief in the need to kill is guilty of negligent homicide
Justification
Elements of the “self-defense” defense
C/L: non-aggressor is justified in using force upon the aggressor if he reasonably believes such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by the other person, and such force is proportional to the threat.
Deadly force is only justified in self-protection if the actor reasonably believes that its use is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful use of deadly force likely to cause serious bodily injury
Self-defense
Necessity component
Force should not be used against another person unless, and only to the extent that, it is necessary.
C/L: self defense limited to imminent threats
* Imminent ≠ inevitable (an inevitable deadly threat does not satisfy the imminence requirement)
* D may not use deadly force to combat imminent deadly assault if some nondeadly response will apparently suffice.
* In some jurisdictions, D may not use deadly force against an aggressor if he knows that he has a completely safe avenue of retreat.
MPC: modestly relaxes the imminence requirement, providing that self-defense can be available if the actor reasonably believed that the use of defensive force was “immediately necessary”
Self-defense
Proportionality rule
D not justified in using force that is excessive in relation to the harm threatened.
- D may use non-serious force to repel a minor physical threat.
- D ordinarily not permitted to use deadly force to repel what he knows is a minor nondeadly attack, even if deadly force is the only way to prevent the injury.
Self-defense
Grading the offense
C/L (majority view): If genuine but unreasonable mistake –> no defense (all or nothing rule)
C/L (minority view): “imperfect” or “incomplete” self-defense claim, which mitigates the offense to voluntary (rare: involuntary) manslaughter.
MPC (not influential): if genuine but unreasonable mistake –> negligent homicide
Self-defense
“Non-Aggressor” limitation
C/L (majority view): aggressor has no right to a defense claim of self-defense or necessity unless they are, in essence, “free from fault in the difficulty”
Ex: if A unlawfully brandishes a gun and threatens to kill B, A is not justified in defending himself if B responds to A’s threats by use of self-protective force against A
- Limitation: if one knowingly and unnecessarily places himself in a position where he had reason to believe his presence would provoke violence –> no SD claim
(e.g., told to stay away from girl’s house by her brother w/ implicit threat of deadly force, you go anyways, he charges at you with a knife and you shoot and kill him. You would not be able to claim self-defense under this limitation)
MPC: deadly force only prohibited by aggressors who initially provoked w/ purpose of causing deadly harm (i.e., if you brandish a gun –> no self-defense claim, BUT if you say the Eagles suck –> can still raise SD claim if person draws a gun on you for that)
When can a defender use deadly force?
MPC: Only in response to a threat of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat
Self-defense
Defense of another
Someone who comes to the aid of an individual in peril can use deadly force to prevent the attack, under the same circumstances that would justify the use of deadly force by the endangered individual personally
“Other’s Shoes” Minority View – if the person you are trying to protect had the right to self-defense, you have the right to intervene
“Own Shoes” Majority View/MPC – if it looks reasonable to you, you can intervene.
Self-defense
Is a person using deadly force in justifiable SD criminally responsible if (1) the defensive actions injure innocent third parties? What about (2) if they know that defensive measures pose a grave threat to innocent bystanders?
C/L: no criminal liability in 1, BUT can conceivably be convicted of reckless endangerment, and if bystander dies, D could be convicted of homicide (MPC approach as well)
C/L (minority): in (2), can be excused under doctrine of transferred intent
Self-defense
Burden of proof
Once there is evidence raising the issue of self-defense, most jurisdictions place the burden on the prosecution to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt
Self-defense
Retreat
C/L (traditional rule): person outside the home required to retreat when able to do so with complete safety (AND THEY ARE AWARE OF THEIR ABILITY TO DO SO — no reasonable person standard here). If nonetheless use deadly force –> do so unnecessarily and have no SD defense
C/L (modern view): “no-retreat” rule or stand your ground (SYG) — person not engaged in illegal activity has no duty to retreat from any place where the person is lawfully present. Provides self-defender immunity from criminal prosecution (> than affirmative defense)
MPC: no deadly force permitted if knows can avoid necessity of using such force w/ complete safety by retreating UNLESS in home or work (unless D was initial aggressor or attacked by co-worker in place of work)
