Justification Defenses Flashcards
What are justification defenses and how do they function in criminal law?
Recognized as responses to external forces
* Focus on the act, not the actor’s mindset
* Can exculpate otherwise criminal conduct
* Used even when mens rea and actus reus are present
* Not a failure of proof defense, but an affirmative defense
* Can result in a finding of not guilty
* Negates the actus reus of the offense
What must a defendant establish to successfully claim common law self-defense?
- A reasonable belief
- That another’s conduct posed a threat of death or great bodily harm
- That the threat was imminent
- And that deadly force was necessary to protect the defendant
What is “The Texas Rule” and how does it differ from the Model Penal Code (MPC) approach to retreat?
- “The Texas Rule”: Rejects the duty to retreat—no obligation to retreat before using deadly force
- MPC §3.04(2)(b)(ii)(A):
Deadly force is not justifiable if the person knows they can retreat with complete safety,
except: - No duty to retreat from one’s dwelling or place of work
- Unless the person was the initial aggressor
- MPC §3.04(2)(b)(ii)(A):
What are the Castle Doctrine and the Aggressor Rule, and how does the MPC modify the aggressor rule?
- Castle Doctrine: No duty to retreat when in your own home
- Aggressor Rule: An initial aggressor generally cannot claim self-defense
- MPC Exception: The right to self-defense may be regained if the aggressor clearly breaks off the struggle, so that any renewal by the other party is a new and distinct engagement
In State v. Marr, what were the requested and given jury instructions, and how do they relate to perfect and imperfect self-defense?
- Requested Instruction: Perfect self-defense — would fully justify the killing if the belief was reasonable and the threat was imminent
- Jury Instruction Given: Imperfect self-defense — applies when the defendant had an honest but unreasonable belief in the imminence of death or serious bodily harm
- Imperfect self-defense can mitigate, but not eliminate, culpability (e.g., reduce murder to manslaughter)
In Bechtel v. State, how did the court define a battered woman, what are the three stages of abuse, and what were the key jury instructions and opinions?
- Definition of a Battered Woman: A woman who has been subjected to repeated physical and/or psychological abuse by her partner
- Three Stages of Abuse (Cycle of Violence):
1. Tension-building phase
2. Acute battering incident
3. Contrition/honeymoon phase - Original Jury Instruction: Did not allow consideration of expert testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS)
- New Instruction: Allowed the jury to consider BWS evidence in evaluating reasonableness of the defendant’s belief in danger
- Concurring in Result: Some justices agreed with the outcome but did not believe sweeping doctrinal changes were necessary, seeing it as a simple self-defense case
- Debate: Whether BWS should create new legal standards or just fit within existing self-defense doctrine
- Three Stages of Abuse (Cycle of Violence):
Is there a duty to retreat from one’s own home when attacked by a cohabitant, and what does the Texas Penal Code say?
- Majority Rule: No duty to retreat when in your own home, even if the attacker is a cohabitant (e.g., spouse, partner)
- Seen as an extension of the Castle Doctrine
- Texas Penal Code: Explicitly removes the duty to retreat in such situations—affirming a person’s right to stand their ground at home
What limits the use of deadly force under the law enforcement defense?
Police cannot use deadly force to make an arrest if there is no immediate threat to the officer or others. Since 2015, there have been ~1,000 fatal police shootings annually. African Americans are killed at more than twice the rate of white Americans. Most victims are young males (ages 20–40), and killings occur nationwide at rates far higher than in other countries.
What are the key elements of self-defense under Texas Penal Code § 9.31?
One can respond with force if they reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to protect against another’s unlawful force.
* The threat must be imminent.
* The threatened harm must involve unlawful force, but not necessarily deadly force.
* The actor may only use force proportionate to the threat.
* Use of force is presumed reasonable if the other was unlawfully entering/attempting to enter the actor’s home, vehicle, or place of work.
* This defense is not available to the aggressor, unless they clearly abandon the encounter.
* No duty to retreat if the actor has a legal right to be present.
Under Texas Penal Code § 9.32, when can deadly force be used, and how does it differ from § 9.31?
Deadly force can be used when the actor reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to:
1. Protect against another’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, or
2. Prevent the imminent commission of certain serious crimes (e.g., aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, robbery).
Unlike § 9.31, § 9.32 specifically addresses deadly force and requires a threat of deadly harm or certain felonies. The presumption of reasonableness and lack of duty to retreat still apply if the actor is in a place they have a legal right to be.
What are key differences between the Model Penal Code (MPC) and Texas Penal Code approaches to self-defense?
- Immediacy: Both require an imminent threat, but MPC uses “immediately necessary” language like Texas.
- Deadly Force Limited: MPC permits deadly force only if the actor believes it is necessary to protect against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse by force/threat.
- Duty to Retreat: MPC imposes a duty to retreat if the actor knows they can avoid deadly force with complete safety (except in their home). Texas does not require retreat if the actor has a legal right to be there.
- Aggressor Limitation: Both deny the defense to initial aggressors, but MPC allows it if the aggressor withdraws and communicates withdrawal.
What is the burden of proof for self-defense?
Most jurisdictions require the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt once raised. Some require the defense to prove it by a preponderance of evidence.
When is defense of others justified under Texas Penal Code § 9.33?
A person may use force to protect a third party if they reasonably believe the third party is facing unlawful force and would be justified in using self-defense themselves. The intervention must be immediately necessary.
What is the 5-part test from State v. Crawford for necessity?
- Imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury or reasonably believe himself or other to be in such danger
- No reckless placement in danger
- No legal alternative
- No preplanned access to weapon
- Cease use of weapon once necessity ends
What is the Choice of Evils defense under MPC § 3.02(1)?
Justified if the harm or evil avoided is greater than the harm caused, the law doesn’t provide exceptions, and no legislative intent exists to exclude the defense.
When is conduct justified under Texas Penal Code § 9.22?
If the actor reasonably believes conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm, and that avoiding harm outweighs the harm the law prevents. Defense fails if legislature meant to exclude it.
