Criminal Law - Defenses- Gts

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

Front 14

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

Back 14

If lack of Mens Rea, acquittal.

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

Front 15

4 Types of Mens Rea in MPC

Back 15

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 16

What's required to show battered person syndrome?

Back 16

Deadly force may be used during an active confrontation

one may consider past incidents to determine whether current threat is deadly or non deadly

Front 17

What is the alibi defense?

Back 17

Show Def was somewhere else when crime committed. Affirmative defense. Burden on D to show they were elsewhere.

“An alibi places the defendant at the relevant time in a different place than the scene involved and so removed thereform as to render it impossible for the accused to be the guilty party. “

Must give notice before trial of an alibi defense, so it can be researched.

Front 18

DEFENSE OF PROPERTY

Back 18

Justified in using reasonable force to protect his [or her] property from trespass or theft, when he [or she] reasonably believes that his [or her] property is in immediate danger of such an unlawful interference and that the use of such force is necessary to avoid that danger.”

Person may use as much force as is reasonably necessary to eject a trespasser from his property, and that if he uses more force than is necessary, he is guilty of assault

• Can’t defend property with deadly force. Can’t set up Spring Gun
• CAN resist arrest police if they don’t have probable cause (supposed to have a warrant)

Front 19

Necessity

Back 19

Necessity / Choice of Evil – physical factors beyond the actor’s control rendered illegal conduct the lesser of two evils
• Economic issues (no money to feed kids) won’t apply
• i.e. driving with suspended license in order to get someone to a hospital
• i.e. Civil disobedience – like chaining self to tree -

Affirmative defense such as Necessity/ Choice of evils provides a legal justification for otherwise criminally culpable behavior. A defendant who asserts an affirmative defense admits the doing of a charged act, but seeks to justify the act on grounds deemed by law to be sufficient to avoid criminal responsibility.

Front 20

Duress

Back 20

Coerced by others

Affirmative defense such as Necessity/ Choice of evils provides a legal justification for otherwise criminally culpable behavior. A defendant who asserts an affirmative defense admits the doing of a charged act, but seeks to justify the act on grounds deemed by law to be sufficient to avoid criminal responsibility.

Front 21

COMPETENCY

Back 21

COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL – govt can put burden on defendant to prove they’re incompetent to stand trial.

Elements: must show both.
1. Can’t Comprehend the proceedings ….. “a reasonable degree of understanding the proceedings.”
-------What are judge, jury, etc.
-------Doesn’t mean insane

2. can't assist counsel in my defense


Means that there’s no trial until you’re longer competent again. i.e. head injury after pleadings.

Front 22

What is the INSANITY defense?

Back 22

Rationale: it’s not really ^you^ acting. You don’t have control over self.

Front 23

What is M/Nagten insanity?

Back 23

M’Naghten Rule - Can’t tell moral or legal right or wrong. Mental disease or defect such that

----1. Didn’t know that he was doing the act.
----2. Did know but didn’t know it was wrong.

(Son of Sam – knew it was wrong to kill – does not pass. He knew legal or moral right/wrong)
Purely cognitive.

Front 24

What is the Substantial Capacity Defense?

Back 24

Substantial Capacity is a type of Insanity Defense under the Modern Penal Code. Lacked the capacity to EITHER appreciate the criminality of his conduct OR conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

It's like M’Naghten and Irresistible impulse mixed together.

Front 25

What is the Irresistible Impulse Rule?

Back 25

Irresistible Impulse – Due to mental illness, D was unable to control his actions of conform his conduct to the law.
Minority rule.

Not cognitive at all

Front 26

What is the Durham Rule?

Back 26

Durham Rule - not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was a product of mental disease or defect.

Massive minority rule. – only New Hampshire follows –

Front 27

INTOXICATION

Back 27

At common law, voluntary intoxication was not a defense to general intent crimes

But COULD negate mens rea in specific intent crimes.

Involuntary intoxication was a complete defense to most crimes, since lacks Actus Reus voluntary act.

Front 28

Aaltperp – alleged alternative perpetrator

Back 28

To establish an Aaltperp – alleged alternative perpetrator, we must show:
Opportunity
Motive

Opportunity alone is not enough. Motive + Opportunity.

Front 29

What is Mistake of Law?

Back 29

MISTAKE OF LAW -- Voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty
• Knew of the duty
• Voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty

Front 30

What is Mistake of Fact?

Back 30

• NOT a defense/an affirmative defense, just makes it hard for prosecution to prove the elements of your crime
• Must be an “honest and reasonable” mistake

Front 31

What are the elements of Self-Defense?

Back 31

Self defense requires that:

1. The Defendant is threatened with the use or threat of the imminent use, of

2. Unlawful force

3. That does or could cause physical injury and

4. Which a reasonable person would believe could not be avoided without the use of physical force, and the actor

5. Defends by using only a reasonable amount of force and

6. Was not responsible for the situation that prompted the need to use such force.

Front 32

Consent

Back 32

H. Consent
a. Generally NOT a defense UNLESS the crime requires lack of consent of the victim (e.g. rape)


b. Where consent is required, defense applicable only if:
--i. Consent is freely given
--ii. The party is capable of consenting AND
--iii. No fraud was used to obtain the consent.

Front 33

INFANCY

Back 33

a. Under 7 → no criminal liability

b. Under 14 → rebuttable presumption of no criminal liability

Front 34

Is abandonment a defense to attempt?

Back 34

No, not once attempt is completed.

Front 35

How do you show a LACK OF MENS REA as a way to get not guilty verdict (not an affirmative defense.

Back 35

Lack of Intent, either general or specific.


Mental state of the crime charged Application of the defense
Specific Intent --> ANY mistake (reasonable or unreasonable)
Malice or general intent ---> Reasonable mistakes only
Strict liability ----> NEVER

Front 36

Entrapment

Back 36

– very narrow defense. Available only if:

a. The criminal design originated with law enforcement officers and

b. The D was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to contract by the government

Front 37

When will mistake of fact negate Mens Rea?

Back 37

Specific Intent --> ANY mistake (reasonable or unreasonable)

General intent ---> Reasonable mistakes only
Malice ---> Reasonable Mistakes only

Strict liability ----> NEVER

Front 38

When will intoxication negate Mens Rea?

Back 38

It depends, but it may be offered as a DEFENSE to specific intent crimes.
Specific intent crimes may fail if intoxication is offered as an alternative explanation instead of a criminal intent.

BAM ACTS FOF ... i.e. Not guilty of burglary. I didn't intend to commit a felony. was just drunk.

Burglary, Assault, Murder(1st deg), Attempt, Conspiracy, Theft, Solicitation False Pretenses, O---, Forgery