Defences

Question 1

What is the M’Naghten Test?

Answer 1

The D is entitled to acquittal by reason of insanity if he can prove:

• They has a disease of the mind
• Which caused a defect in reason
• So that the D lacked the ability to understand: (1) that his conduct was wrong; and (2) the nature and quality of his conduct

Question 2

What is the Cognitive/Volitional Test for insanity?

Answer 2

D must establish that he lacked substantial capacity to either:

• Appreciate the criminality of his conduct

OR

• Conform his conduct to the requirements of the law

Question 3

What is the Irresistible Impulse Test?

Answer 3

D is entitled to acquittal by reason of insanity if:

• he was unable to control his actions

OR

• conform his conduct to the law

Question 4

What is the Durham Test?

Answer 4

The D is entitled to acquittal by reason of insanity if the crime was a product of his mental illness

Question 5

To which crimes is voluntary intoxication a defence?

Answer 5

Crimes of specific intent

Question 6

What does voluntary intoxication require to be a valid defence?

Answer 6

Such severe prostration of the faculties that the D cannot form the requisite specific intent

Question 7

What is the rule of sevens when it comes to prosecuting minors for a crime?

Answer 7

Under 7 = cannot prosecute

Under 14 = rebuttable presumption against prosecution

Over 14 = prosecution allowed

Question 8

If the crime is one of specific intent, is mistake of fact a defence?

Answer 8

Yes, any mistake of fact is a defence, even if UNREASONABLE

Question 9

If the crime is one of general intent or malice, is mistake of fact a defence?

Answer 9

Yes, but only a REASONABLE mistake of fact

Question 10

When may a person use NON-DEADLY force in self-defence?

Answer 10

He is without fault

Reasonably believes that doing so is necessary

To protect himself from imminent, unlawful force

Question 11

Is there a duty to retreat before a person uses on-deadly force in self defence?

Answer 11

No

Question 12

When can a D use DEADLY force in self defence?

Answer 12

He is confronted with unlawful force

He is without fault

He reasonably believes he is facing imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm

Question 13

The D is the initial aggressor of a fight, can they claim self-defence?

Answer 13

No

But can regain this right if:

• He withdraw from the fight and communicates that withdrawal to the other person
• The victim escalated to a deadly fight

Question 14

If the defendant is mistake about the need to use force in self defence, will he be liable?

Answer 14

Reasonable mistake = complete defence

Unreasonable mistake = majority rule: no defence. MPC rule: mitigates but doesn’t exonerate

Question 15

Can force be used to prevent a crime?

Answer 15

Deadly force may only be used to prevent a felony risking human life. Otherwise non-deadly force can be used to prevent a serious breach of the peace.

Question 16

Can a D use force to defend others?

Answer 16

Yes, he has the same right as if the victim were protecting himself

Question 17

What is the defence of necessity?

Answer 17

The D may justify his criminal conduct if he reasonably believe that the conduct was necessary to prevent a greater harm.

Question 18

A Defendant can rely on the defence of duress if…?

Answer 18

He was coerced because of threat, from another person, of imminent death or serious biking injury to himself or a close family member.

Question 19

For which crime can duress not be relied upon?

Answer 19

Intentional homicide. The D is still guilty of murder (not M/S)