Justification and Excuse

Question 1

Justification

Answer 1

you are justified even though you technically violated the criminal law

Question 2

Excuse

Answer 2

you did violate criminal law, regret what you did, but cannot punish you because reasonable members of the community would have been likely to succumb to the threats

Question 3

Justification: Necessity

Regina v. Dudley & Stephens

Answer 3

1. Seamen on yacht cast away in a storm, hadn’t eaten in days and conspire to kill and eat cabin boy, ate the cabin boy, later they were rescued, probably would not have survived without eating him. One seaman rejected the plan, ate boy after others killed him, and was not charged because he was not complicit.
2. Court found them guilty of murder, rejected necessity, temptation not a defense
3. Power imbalance, cabin boy not consulted
4. Court trying to prevent this type of activity

Question 4

Justification: Self-Defense

To use physical force at all (not necessarily deadly force) have to prove:

Answer 4

1. Reasonably believe person is going to imminently harm you using unlawful physical force (policeman’s force is not unlawful)
2. Proportionality rule –only use whatever force is necessary to protect self & stop the crime

Question 5

Justification: Self-Defense

To use deadly force:

Answer 5

1. Can only use deadly force if you reasonably believe another person is using or about to use deadly physical force OR if you reasonably believe a person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery

**Deadly force requires imminent harm and proportionality

Question 6

Goetz Rule of Self Defense

Answer 6

Reasonable person in the actor’s situation under the same or similar circumstances would believe that deadly force was being used or about to be used against you

Question 7

4 types of “reasonably believe” for deadly force self-defense

Answer 7

1. Reasonable prudent person (very objective and detached)
   • Most jurisdictions don’t endorse this
2. Reasonable person in the actor’s situation under the same or similar circumstances (Goetz court endorses this)
3. Reasonable to a person whose mental and physical characteristics are like the accused’s and who sees/knows what the accused sees/knows (subjective)

Question 8

MPC and deadly force for self defense

Answer 8

MPC uses subjective test – “he believed the use of deadly force was necessary to protect himself” (“Imperfect justification” – unreasonable mistake is mitigation rather than complete defense – negates mens rea in murder cases - if belief is negligently/recklessly formed then can convict of lower homicide crime)

Question 9

State v. Goetz

Answer 9

1. 4 young black men on subway with Goetz, 2 approach him and demand $5, he shoots them all in succession, said he was afraid they were going to rob him based on prior experiences being mugged and maimed, said his intention was to hurt them and would’ve shot more. Even paused and shot one that he’d missed after he no longer posed a threat.
2. Goetz fights for purely subjective standard that takes into account his prior experiences
3. Court rules standard is Reasonably prudent person in D’s situation under the same or similar circumstances (objective with subjective element)
4. “Bizarre and abberational” thought patterns are not included – don’t want people to set own standards for permissible use of force
5. Belief doesn’t have to be correct, just reasonable

Question 10

Stand Your Ground

Answer 10

SYG creates mini-trial before trial to decide whether SYG was justified

Based on personal autonomy rights

Castle doctrine expanded to include locations other than your home

Depending on locality: grants immunity from prosecution and sometimes even civil suit

Cannot instigate confrontation that leads to having to use deadly force

Question 11

Castle Doctrine

Answer 11

some states (and common law) allow person to use deadly force to prevent entry into his home based on reasonable belief that force necessary to prevent robbery, burglary, arson, or felonious assault.

No requirement to retreat

Question 12

Retreat rule

Answer 12

1. MPC embraces rule, defeats right of self-defense if can avoid necessity by retreating
2. Most states reject the retreat rule, but also reject right to stand one’s ground rule (consider it along with all other circumstances to see if defendant was justified in actions)
3. Castle exception – don’t have to retreat if attacked in own home

Question 13

Excessive use of defensive force

Answer 13

Guilty of assault, unless it results in death –> then manslaughter

Question 14

Mobley rule

Answer 14

SYG: Given totality of circumstances leading up to attack, was the appearance of danger so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under same circumstances would have believed that the danger could only be avoided through use of deadly force.

Chilis fight case

Question 15

Battered Woman Syndrome

Answer 15

Series of common characteristics in women abused by men over long period of time

1. Cycles of violence and loving behavior
2. Demoralized and degraded, low self-esteem

Question 16

BWS and Mental State

Answer 16

1. Can support objective component – reasonable that she didn’t leave abusive marriage
2. Can support subjective component – honest belief that husband/BF would kill or seriously maim her, had to use deadly force

Question 17

State v. Kelly

Answer 17

1. Kelly’s husband beat her when he was drunk, one day (in public) he grabbed her and choked her, separated them, she went to look for daughter, he ran at her, she stabbed him with scissors from her purse, indicted for murder
   • State’s story was that she attacked him
2. She said self-defense, stabbed him because she thought he would kill her
3. Question if expert testimony on BWS is relevant, it is!
4. The expert’s testimony, if accepted by the jury, would have aided it in determining whether, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed there was imminent danger to her life (take the 2nd POV for self-defense)
5. Show that Kelly could have honestly feared that she would’ve suffered serious harm, but still have stayed with him – rebut general misconceptions

Question 18

Norman Case

Answer 18

1. Shot her (seriously) abusive husband while he was sleeping
2. Upheld imminent and proportional standard, to get self-defense instruction have to have reasonable fear of imminent death/great bodily harm and response must be proportional
3. • Most courts have held that imminence element not satisfied by showing actor faced threats of future physical violence, especially they when killed man when sleeping

Question 19

Excuse: Duress

Answer 19

1. Threat of immediate infliction on the defendant [or family member or any 3rd party] of death or grievous bodily harm
2. Defendant has well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out (reasonableness requirement)
3. No reasonable lawful opportunity to otherwise avert the threatened harm
4. Reason to believe that crime will avert harm
5. Defendant did not recklessly/negligently place herself in situation where it was probable she’d be coerced (cannot create the excusing conditions, responsible if you create the conditions that lead to your excuse)

Question 20

Justification for Duress

Answer 20

There are pressures so exigent, bad, and compelling in the circumstances that society doesn’t believe that it would be efficacious to punish that person; ordinary person would’ve done the same thing

Question 21

US v. Haney

Answer 21

1. Haney prosecuted as an accessory, help Francis commit a crime
2. Francis was threatened after Americas Most Wanted said he was a leader of the Aryan brotherhood, wanted to escape to avoid being killed by non-whites in prison, then decided they would get caught trying to escape so they’d be segregated without having to report, caught and charged with possession of escape paraphernalia and attempted escape
3. Attempt charge dismissed by jury. Haney appealed refusal to instruct jury on duress
4. Extends duress defense to third parties, does not limit to families

Question 22

MPC and Duress Excuse

Answer 22

Immediacy of danger is one of circumstances to be considered in determining whether the threatened use of force was such that person of reasonable firmness would have been unable to resist

Question 23

Duress and BWS: State. v. BH

Answer 23

State v. BH
1. Abusive husband forced her to have sex with her 7 year old stepson, argued under duress
2. Elements of duress claim
• 1. Defendant actually believed in and be frightened by the likelihood of the threatened harm, subjective
o Admitted for this (support honest belief of danger)
• 2. Level of resistance to the particular threat must meet community standards of reasonableness, objective
o Cannot be used in this, it’s about if a person of reasonable firmness in that situation be able to resist threat from her abuser
• 3. Cannot have recklessly placed him/herself in the situation in which it was probable that he/she would be subjected to duress
o BWS testimony can be admitted for this (explain why stayed)
3. Does not rewrite Kelly
• Self-defense – would a reasonable person in same/similar circumstances have perceived threat
• Duress – would the person of reasonable firmness in the same/similar circumstances have succumbed to the threat
• *Different reasonableness POV as to assess if it’s a defense

Question 24

Self Defense vs. Duress

Answer 24

Would a reasonable person in same/similar circumstances have perceived threat

vs.

Would the person of reasonable firmness in the same/similar circumstances have succumbed to the threat