Criminal Law: Defenses

Front 1

Ignorance or mistake concerning fact will affect criminal liability only if:

Back 1

1) It shows D lacked intent required for the crime; and
2) Mistake was objectively reasonable*

*If mistake shows absence of a necessary "specific intent," it need not be reasonable.

Front 2

Specific intent crimes

Back 2

1) Larceny, property crimes (intent to permanently deprive or defraud)
2) Burglary (intent to commit offense)
3) Attempt and conspiracy (intent to complete the target offense)
4) Any offense defined as doing something "with intent to .."

Arson and rape aren't specific intent crimes

Front 3

What's the analysis of mistake of fact under modern statutes?

Mistake of fact requires acquittal whenever it shows lack of whatever mental state is required for the crime.

Back 3

If D takes property mistakenly believing it belongs to him, not larceny. Lacks intent to deprive ANOTHER of that person's property.

Front 4

Crimes generally require mens rea (intent). While D need not know anything about law, D must have been aware of the ___.

Back 4

Facts that constitute the crime

Front 5

Strict liability crimes

Don't require awareness of all facts

Back 5

Statutory rape (no knowledge of V's age required);
Bigamy (need not know at time of 2nd marriage he has living spouse);
Regulatory crimes (enforcement device, low penalty)

Front 6

4 mens rea types under modern statutes

Back 6

Purpose: conscious desire (want)
Knowledge: awareness of practical certainty (almost for sure)
Recklessness: awareness of a substantial risk (must actually be aware)
Negligence: Reasonable person would have been aware of a substantial risk (should have been aware)

Front 7

Modern crime usually requires that defendant acts at least __ concerning all physical acts of crime.

Back 7

Recklessly.

Front 8

Transferred intent

Back 8

D intends to injure one person and accidentally inflicts similar injury on another; treat as if she intended to injure person she actually harmed.

Front 9

3-step statutory analysis of mental intent

Back 9

1) What facts must D be aware of?
2) What level of required awareness?
3) Does evidence show that D had this awareness?

Front 10

A D's affirmative (but mistaken) belief that criminal law did not prohibit her conduct is defense if:

1) Belief was objectively reasonable; and
2) D relied upon a statute later held invalid, judicial decision later overruled, official interpretation of law by a public official

Back 10

Defense of mistake of law can't be based on advise of counsel.

However, sometimes the mens rea of a crime requires knowledge that the law is being violated. If this is the case, advice of counsel may show the lack of that mens rea.

Front 11

If a crime requires awareness of the law, even an ___ ignorance or mistake that shows lack of awareness will require acquittal!

Back 11

Unreasonable.

Front 12

M'Naghten rule?

Back 12

D. is entitled to acquittal only if facts show that at the time of crime:

1) He had a serious mental disease or defect;
2) That caused a defect in his reasoning abilities; and
3) As a result, he didn't understand the nature of act he was doing OR understand that his act was wrong

Front 13

M'Naughten formulation of the insanity test

1) Assume situation was as D. perceived (in his own crazy mind)
2) Under those circumstances, would he have been legally entitled to do what he did?
3) If so, but only if so, he's entitled to acquittal.

Back 13

** Minority view: Mentally impaired D. should be acquitted if evidence shows that person believed the conduct was morally permissible.

Front 14

Under usual M'Naughten Rule interpretation, an insanity defense can't be based on loss of control

Back 14

*Loss of control may be a defense under:

1) Statutory versions of insanity based on the MPC; or
2) "Irresistible impulse" version of insanity in some jurisdictions

Front 15

Criminal liability must be based upon voluntary act of D. If D was unconscious her behavior can't constitute the necessary voluntary act

Back 15

Impaired consciousness (sleepwalking) may show an absence of voluntary act, but it's not insanity

Front 16

Involuntary intoxication

Back 16

1) D. didn't know substance was intoxicating (mind-altering); or
2) D consumed substance under duress ("Do it or I'll shoot you")

Treated as a mental illness; insanity test applied.

Front 17

Voluntary intoxication works for acquittal only if crime required proof of a specific intent and intoxication shows he lacked that intent

Back 17

As to homicide:

1) Can disprove "premeditation";
2) Cannot "disprove" malice aforethought and reduce murder to manslaughter

Front 18

Modern statutory analysis, voluntary intoxication requires acquittal if:

1) Crime requires mental state higher than recklessness; and
2) Intoxication shows he lacked that mental state

Back 18

Minority approach to vol intox as defense:

Completely irrelevant to criminal liability; can't argue lack of intent due to intoxication. SCOTUS held this is constitutionally permissible.

Front 19

Under modern statutes, does voluntary intoxication defense apply to crimes where recklessness is sufficient for liability/

Back 19

No

Front 20

Majority ("subjective") rule of entrapment

It occurs only if:
1) D. was not predisposed to commit crimes of sort charged; and
2) Officers created intent to commit the offense in her mind

Back 20

Minority ("objective") rule of entrapment:

Policy activity would cause a reasonable and unpredisposed person to form the intent to commit crime.

*Just look at what officer does

Front 21

Necessity ("choice of lesser evils") is defense if:

1) D believed that committing crime would prevent an imminently threated harm;
2) D believed threatened harm would be greater than the harm that would result from commission fo crime; and
3) Beliefs were objectively reasonable.

Back 21

Necessity is not a defense when:

1) D wrongfully created situation making the choice necessary; or
2) D. killed another to avoid his own death

Front 22

A D charged with escape is likely to have a necessity defense only if __.

Back 22

D attempted to surrender to authorities as soon as immediate threat was over.

Front 23

Generally, duress/coercion is a defense that D was compelled to commit a crime by a threat that if he didn't do so, threatening person would:

1) do imminent and physical harm
2) to D or a third person

Back 23

* Exception: Not a defense to a crime consisting of an intentional killing

Duress is defense to murder if prosecution's theory of guilt does not require proof of intent to kill. (ex: felony murder)

Front 24

Self-defense is perfect defense if D believed that:

1) He was in imminent danger of being illegally physically harmed by another;
2) Force he used was necessary to prevent threatened harm; and
3) Beliefs were objectively reasonable

Back 24

If crime involved deadly force, self-defense only if she reasonably believed that:

1) She was threatened with imminent or serious bodily injury; and
2) Deadly force used was necessary to prevent that harm to her.

Front 25

General rule about the need to retreat: opportunity to retreat is factor to consider in determining whether deadly force was reasonable.

Back 25

Minority rule about "need to retreat"?

Any opportunity to retreat must be taken before using deadly force. Applies only if retreat possible with complete safety. No duty to retreat in one's own home.

Front 26

An aggressor (who starts a fight) can't use force in self-defense during a fight

Back 26

Aggressor regains the right to use force in self-defense during a fight:

1) Withdrawing from the fight; or
2) Giving notice of desire to do so.

Front 27

Self-defense is imperfect defense in homicide cases

Back 27

D charged with murder who actually but unreasonably believed killing was necessary in self-defense is not entitled to acquittal, but should be convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Front 28

Defense of other persons

Back 28

1) D believed that another person was threatened with imminent unlawful physical harm by a third person;
2) D believed that force she used was necessary to prevent the harm; AND
3) Beliefs were objectively reasonable.

** Availability of defense turns on whether it reasonably appeared to D that person she aided was in the right!

Front 29

Generally, it is a defense that force was used in the reasonable belief that it was necessary to prevent unlawful interference with real or personal property

Back 29

1) Only non-deadly force used to defend property; and

2) Force only used to prevent interference (not to regain property, unless in immediate hot pursuit)