Justifications and Excuses

Question 1

Justification

Answer 1

when acts are carried out to prevent or redress harm

Question 2

Excuse

Answer 2

a defense that asserts the actor’s mental inability to consciously do evil

Question 3

Self Defense CL

Answer 3

Must hold a reasonable belief of imminent danger
Subjective

your use or threatened use of force is no more physical force than would have appeared necessary (proportionality requirement)

Your self-defense only lasts as long as the initial threat continues/ for the initial threat’s duration

Question 4

Duty to retreat?

Answer 4

In CL, yes

If the target of the attack can safely retreat from the attack and avoid the necessity of using deadly force, the target is required to do so.

Question 5

Imperfect self defense

Answer 5

Acts as an allowance, since if you do not meet the self-defense requirements, it would just be murder.

This justification is used for the person who is mistaken as to their belief of who needs to use this lethal force.

This is an instance where we will allow for the reduction of murder to go down to manslaughter based on this belief/ mistake

Question 6

Self Defense MPC

Answer 6

Use of force justifiable as self-defense when actor believes force is immediately necessary (tiny bit looser than common-law imminence) for the purpose of protecting himself against unlawful force by another.

Question 7

Defensive force by Police officers (MPC 3.09)

Answer 7

the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is making or assisting in making an arrest and the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to effect a lawful arrest.

Question 8

Necessity CL

Answer 8

Choice of lesser evil doctrine

The harm or evil thought to be avoided by the conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged

The danger sought to be avoided must represent a present, imminent, or immediate threat
(necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another)

The defendant cannot be responsible for creating the very situation that produced the state of necessity

The defendant must have no alternative but to violate the law

There must be a causal relationship between the criminal act and the harm to be avoided

The defendant must not have continued the illegal conduct after the harm was averted

Most jurisdictions just allow the defense if the crime in question represents a legislative choice to disallow a claim for necessity

Question 9

Necessity MPC

Answer 9

• the harm to be avoided is greater
• Neither the code nor other law defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved; and
• A legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear

Requires that the actor believed that the action was necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or another

cannot be used if they were reckless or negligent in brining about the situation

Very similar to CL

Question 10

Insanity CL

Answer 10

various insanity test to determine culpability

Question 11

Intoxication CL

Answer 11

Evidence may be offered when the defendant is charged with a crime that requires purpose or knowledge to establish at the intoxication prevented the defendant from formulating the requisite intent
So it could be a good defense to specific intent crimes but will not be a defense to General intent crimes
the defense will not be available if the defendant purposely becomes intoxicated in order to establish the defense

Question 12

Insanity MPC

Answer 12

A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law

Question 13

Intoxication MPC

Answer 13

It is a pathological affirmative defense if by reason of the intoxication, the actor at the time of his conduct lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate its criminality or to conform their conduct to the requirements of law

Question 14

Involuntary intoxication MPC

Answer 14

Pathological, not knowing the properties or effects of the substance on someone’s body)

Question 15

Involuntary intoxication CL

Answer 15

Without knowledge of its nature; or
Under direct duress imposed by another; or
Pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the substance’s intoxicating effect

Question 16

MPC exceptions to self-defense

Answer 16

Can’t use when under arrest

Deadly force is not justifiable unless actor believes such force necessary to protect against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, or rape

Deadly force not justified if actor is first aggressor or can retreat with complete safety (but no obligation to retreat in one’s home or place of work)

Question 17

M’Naghten test

Answer 17

Disease of the mind that prevents the actor from knowing the wrongfulness of his actions or keeps him from understanding their actions)

Requires
A disease of the mind that;

Caused a defect of reason;

Such that the dft lacked the ability at the time of his actions to either;

Know the wrongfulness of his actions; or

Understand the nature and quality of his actions

Question 18

Irresistible impulse test

Answer 18

Legally insane if because of their mental illness, they were unable to control their actions or were unable to conform their conduct to the law

Question 19

Durham test

Answer 19

A defendant is entitled to an acquittal if the proof establishes that is crime was the product of mental disease or defect
A crime is a product of the disease if it would not have been committed but for the disease

Question 20

MPC substantial capacity test

Answer 20

Defendant is entitled to an acquittal if they have suffered a mental disease or defect and as a result, lacks the substantial capacity either:

to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct; or

to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law