Criminal Law - Defenses

Front 1

Insanity

Back 1

If defendant was legally insane at time of criminal act, no liability.

Four tests:
1. M'Naughten
2. Irresistible Impulse Test
3. MPC Test
4. Durham Rule

Front 2

M'Naughten Test
(Insanity)

Back 2

Defendant suffers from severe mental disease or defect so as a result was unable to know
1. the nature and quality of the act; and
2. what they were doing was wrong

Some jurisdictions think defendant is not insane where even though knows act is illegal, think morally justified.

Other jurisdictions: if don't know morally wrong then insane (doesn't matter if knew illegal)

Front 3

Irresistible Impulse Test
(Insanity)

Back 3

Not guilty when incapable of controlling the impulse to commit the crime because of severe mental disease or defect.

Front 4

MPC Test
(Insanity)

Back 4

Softens M'Naughten incapable of knowing test--only requires lack of substantial capacity to know (instead of incapable of knowing)

Doesnt require you to completely not understand, just lack substantial capacity.

Front 5

Durham/New Hampshire Rule ("product rule")
(Insanity)

Back 5

Not criminally responsible if product of the mental disease or defect

Front 6

Intoxication

Back 6

1. Voluntary: defense to any crime involving proof of mens rea
--not a complete defense--just reduces culpability by negating specific intent element

2. Involuntary: total defense

Front 7

Duress

Back 7

Excuses criminal conduct where the defendant reasonably believes that the only way to avoid unlawful threats of bodily harm or imminent death is to engage in unlawful conduct.

Almost always involves a threat by a human, rather than by natural forces.

Duress is not a defense to murder, unless charged with felony murder

Front 8

Self-Defense

Back 8

An honest and reasonable judgment that it is necessary to use force to defend against an unlawful, imminent threat of bodily harm:
a. Defendant is the victim of an unlawful threat (not initial provoker)
b. Defendant is in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm
c. Defendant uses proportional force—no more than is reasonably necessary to prevent the imminent threat

Front 9

Homicidal Self-Defense

Back 9

Permitted only in response to death or grievous bodily injury.

first aggressor can never claim ("unclean hands")

1) At common law, an aggressor could regain self-defense only by complete withdrawal
2) Modern jurisdictions restore the aggressor to the right of self-defense (cleans his hands) if: first victim responds to aggression with excessive force

Retreat Rule

Front 10

Retreat Rule
(Homicidal Self-Defense)

Back 10

Common law:
--victim of unlawful violence had a duty to retreat to the wall before resorting to homicidal self-defense
--Castle Exception: not required when defendant is in own home, auto, office
--Other places: no retreat when no feasible alternative to threat

35 states do not have retreat rule: any victim of unlawful imminent threat of death of bodily harm can stand his ground

Front 11

Defense of Third Person

Back 11

Justified when necessary to defend third person facing unlawful imminent threat of bodily harm--proportional.

Majority:
--did defendant make reasonable judgment that person protected was victim of unlawful violence?
--if 3rd person is also aggressor, or a felon resisting lawful arrest, defendant must reasonably think its necessary to protect aggressor

Minority:
-"Steps Into Shoes Rule"--defendant steps into the shows of the one he is protecting
--if person protected was first aggressor or failed to retreat, then defendant has no defense, even if no idea

Front 12

Defense of Property

Back 12

Reasonable, non-deadly force justified in defending property from theft, destruction, or trespass.

1. Where defendant has reasonable belief property is in immediate danger.
2. No greater force than necessary.
3. Must demand cease and desist first.

Trap-guns or mechanical devises per se not ok (if cause death or grevious bodily harm)

BUT, deadly force can work when defendant reasonably believes threat to property = threat to life (so self-defense)

Front 13

Necessity

Back 13

1. Justifies committing a crime when it is necessary to avoid immediate threat of greater harm to persons or property.
2. no reasonable alternative to breaking law to avoid greater harm
3. defendant not responsible for causing the harm

Common law: never defended against murder unless felony-murder