NY BAR REVIEW 15 Flashcards
diminished capacity in NY
The diminished capacity plea is based in the belief that certain people, because of mental impairment or disease, are simply incapable of reaching the mental state required to commit a particular crime.
insanity defense in NY
lacked criminal responsibility by
reason of mental disease or defect. If you find that the defendant
has proven that affirmative defense, then you must return a
verdict of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect
A person lacks criminal responsibility by reason of mental
disease or defect when, at the time of the prohibited conduct, as
a result of mental disease or defect, that person lacked
substantial capacity to know or appreciate either:
1. The nature and consequences of such conduct; or
2. That such conduct was wrong.
insanity defense in NY elaborated
the lack of substantial capacity to know or appreciate
must have existed at the time the prohibited conduct was
committed.
Second, the lack of substantial capacity to know or
2
appreciate must have been the result of mental disease or defect.
Third, a lack of substantial capacity to know or appreciate
does not require a lack of total capacity to know or appreciate.
Fourth, the term “know or appreciate” means to have some
understanding; it means more than mere surface knowledge.
Fifth, with respect to the term “wrong,” a person lacks
substantial capacity to know or appreciate that conduct is wrong
if that person, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked
substantial capacity to know or appreciate either that the conduct
was against the law or that it was against commonly held moral
principles, or both.5
insanity - preponderance of the evidence
defendant has the burden of
proving that he/she lacked criminal responsibility by reason of
mental disease or defect and he/she must do so by a
preponderance of the evidence.
prove affirmative defense of insanity by preponderance of the evidence
opinions of psychiatric witnesses,
– prior hospitalizations of the defendant,
– hospital and other medical records,
– the nature and manner in which the crime was committed,
–(specify)
use of physical force in defense of a person
A person may use physical force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to defend himself/ herself or a third party when there is a reasonable belief of imminent use of unlawful physical force
justification for use of physical force
Use of physical force when such conduct is required or authorized by law or judicial decree or is performed by a public servant exercising reasonable exercise of official duties, power, functions
Conduct necessary as emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury
Parent/guardian may use physical not deadly force to maintain discipline or promote welfare for the child
Warden or other correctional official may use physical force to maintain discipline and order
A common carrier may use physical force to prevent death or serious physical injury
A physician may use physical force for treatment purposes
A person may use physical force in self-defense, or defense of a third party, premises, or to prevent larceny or in order to effect an arrest or prevent an escape from custody
NY SELF DEFENSE LAW
Justification; a defense: Penal Code Section 35.00
Use of physical force generally: Penal Code Section 35.10
Use of physical force in defense of a person: Penal Code Section 35.15
Use of physical force in defense of premises/person during burglary: Penal Code Section 35.20
NY SELF DEFENSE CASTLE DOCTRINE
allows individuals to use deadly force to defend their homes against intruders. The key distinction between stand your ground and the castle doctrine is that the castle doctrine designates this justification for people in their homes. The rationale is that your home is “your castle” or safe refuge, and that you should not have to run away from your home when defending it against invaders.
NY’s DUTY TO RETREAT
when an individual is under immediate threat of harm, they are required to retreat from the threat as much as possible. Only then, can the individual use force for self defense purposes; the use of deadly force is considered a last resort.
contracts by minors
May disaffirm most contracts if disaffirmed within reasonable time after reaching majority; exceptions: (1). certain loans; (2). married infant buying home; (3). providing medical care for self/child; (4). for performing athletic or arts services if court-approved; (5). life insurance if 15 or over; (6). or if veteran or veteran’s spouse
minors’ ability to sue
Through guardian or parent, adult spouse, guardian ad litem appointed by court or by infant if over 14
minors’ consent to medical treatment
If married, parent, pregnant, or in an emergency
juvenile delinquent 1
means a person over seven and less than sixteen years of age, who, having committed an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult, (a) is not criminally responsible for such conduct by reason of infancy, or (b) is the defendant in an action ordered removed from a criminal court to the family court pursuant to article seven hundred twenty-five of the criminal procedure law.
juvenile delinquent 2
means a person over seven and less than sixteen years of age, or commencing on October first, two thousand eighteen a person over seven and less than seventeen years of age, and commencing October first, two thousand nineteen a person over seven and less than eighteen years of age, who, having committed an act that would constitute a crime, or a violation, where such violation is alleged to have occurred in the same transaction or occurrence of the alleged criminal act, if committed by an adult, (a) is not criminally responsible for such conduct by reason of infancy, or (b) is the defendant in an action ordered removed from a criminal court to the family court pursuant to article seven hundred twenty-five of the criminal procedure law.
FEDERAL RULE 50A - Judgment as a Matter of Law.
If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:
(A) resolve the issue against the party; and
(B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
murder
is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.
harassment in the first degree
when they intentionally and repeatedly harass another person. This includes following that person in, or around, public places or by course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts which places the victim in reasonable fear of physical injury.
harrassment
intentionally targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them
harrassment in the second degree
with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person in or about public places; they engage in conduct or repeatedly commit acts which alarm or seriously annoy the victim and serve no legitimate purpose.
menacing - felony or misdemeanor?
1st Degree Menacing: This is a class E felony punishable by up to 4 years in prison.
2nd Degree Menacing: This is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in prison.
3rd Degree Menacing: This is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 3 months in prison.
1st DEGREE MENACING
Commits 2nd degree menacing; and
Has been previously convicted of 2nd degree menacing or menacing a police officer or a peace officer within the last 10 years.
2ND DEGREE MENACING
ntentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon or instrument; or
Repeatedly following or engaging in repeated conduct to intentionally place or attempt to place another person in reasonable fear of injury or death; or
Commits the crime of menacing in the 3rd degree in violation of a protective or other court order.
3RD DEGREE MENACING
A person is guilty of 3rd degree menacing when he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death or imminent physical injury.
