Defenses Flashcards

1
Q

What is insanity?

A

There are several formulations of the test to be applied to determine whether, at the time of the crime, the defendant was so mentally ill as to be entitled to acquittal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the M’Naghten Rule?

A

Under this rule, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if: (1) a disease of the mind; (2) caused a defect of reason; (3) such that the defendant lacked the ability at the time of their actions to either know the wrongfulness of their actions or understand the nature and quality of their actions. Delusions, belief that one’s actions are morally right, or loss of control because of mental illness are not defenses unless this test is met.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the Irresistible impulse test?

A

Under this test, a defendant is entitled to acquittal only if, because of a mental illness, they were unable to control their actions or conform their conduct to the law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the Durham/New Hampshire test?

A

Under this test, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of their mental illness (that is, the crime would not have been committed but for the disease). The Durham test is broader than either the M’Naghten test or the irresistible impulse test. It is followed only in New Hampshire.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the ALI or MPC test?

A

Under the M.P.C. test (which represents the “modern trend”), a defendant is entitled to acquittal if they had a mental disease or defect, and, as a result, they lacked the substantial capacity to either: (1) appreciate the criminality of their conduct; or (2) conform their conduct to the requirements of law.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What procedural rules arise when it comes to the insanity defense?

A

a. Burdens of Proof and Persuasion
All defendants are presumed sane; the defendant must raise the insanity issue. In most states, once the issue is raised, the defendant must prove their insanity, generally by a preponderance of the evidence. Other states (and the M.P.C.) require the prosecution to prove the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt. Federal courts require the defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
b. When Defense May Be Raised
Although the insanity defense may be raised at the arraignment when the plea is taken, the defendant need not raise it then. A simple “not guilty” at that time does not waive the right to raise the defense at some future time.
c. Pretrial Psychiatric Examination
If the defendant does not raise the insanity issue, they may refuse a court-ordered psychiatric examination to determine their competency to stand trial. If the defendant raises the insanity issue, they may not refuse to be examined by a psychiatrist appointed to aid the court in the resolution of his insanity plea.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the post-acquittal commitment to mental institution?

A

In most jurisdictions, a defendant acquitted by reason of insanity may be committed to a mental institution until cured. Confinement may exceed the maximum period of incarceration for the offense charged.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is the mental condition during criminal proceedings?

A

Under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, a defendant may not be tried, convicted, or sentenced if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, they are unable (1) to understand the nature of the proceedings being brought against them; or (2) to assist their lawyer in the preparation of their defense. A defendant may not be executed if they are incapable of understanding the nature and purpose of the punishment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is diminished capacity?

A

Some states recognize the defense of “diminished capacity” under which the defendant may assert that as a result of a mental defect short of insanity, they did not have the mental state required for the crime charged. Most states allowing the diminished capacity defense limit it to specific intent crimes, but a few states allow it for general intent crimes as well

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is intoxication?

A

Intoxication may be caused by any substance (for example, drugs, alcohol, medicine). It may be raised whenever intoxication negates one of the elements of the crime. The law usually distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary intoxication.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is voluntary intoxication?

A

Intoxication is voluntary if it is the result of the intentional taking without duress of a substance known to be intoxicating. For purposes of the bar exam, addicts and alcoholics who are intoxicated when they commit a crime are considered to be voluntarily intoxicated rather than involuntarily intoxicated. A person with an addiction may try to argue that their intoxication is not truly voluntary because their addiction compels them to drink or take drugs, but this argument does not work on the exam.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the defense to specific intent crimes for intoxication?

A

Evidence of “voluntary” intoxication may be offered by the defendant only if the crime requires purpose (intent) or knowledge, and the intoxication prevented the defendant from formulating the purpose or obtaining the knowledge. Thus, voluntary intoxication may be a good defense to specific intent crimes, but not to general intent, malice, or strict liability crime (for example, voluntary intoxication will be a good defense to first degree(premeditated) murder, but not second degree murder, because it includes common law (malice) murder).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is involuntary intoxication?

A

Intoxication is involuntary only if it results from the taking of an intoxicating substance without knowledge of its nature, under direct duress imposed by another, or pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the substance’s intoxicating effect. Involuntary intoxication may be treated as a mental illness, and the defendant is entitled to acquittal if they meet the jurisdiction’s insanity test. Thus, involuntary intoxication can be a defense to all crimes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the relationship that insanity has with intoxication?

A

Continuous, excessive drinking or drug use may bring on actual insanity and thus a defendant may be able to claim both an intoxication defense and an insanity defense.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is infancy?

A

At common law, there could be no liability for an act committed by a child under age seven. For acts committed by a child between ages seven and 14, there was a rebuttable presumption that the child was unable to understand the wrongfulness of their acts. Children age 14 or older were treated as adults. Modern statutes often modify this and provide that no child can be convicted of a crime until a stated age is reached, usually 13 or 14. However, children can be found to be delinquent in special juvenile or family courts.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is self-defense and other justification defenses?

A

The justification defenses arise when society has deemed that although the defendant committed a proscribed act, they should not be punished because the circumstances justify the action.

17
Q

What is nondeadly force?

A

A person without fault may use such force as the person reasonably believes is necessary to protect themself from the imminent use of unlawful force upon themself. There is no duty to retreat.

18
Q

What is deadly force?

A

A person may use deadly force in self-defense if the person (1) is without fault; (2) is confronted with “unlawful force”; and (3) reasonably believes that they are threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm. a. Retreat
Generally, there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force. The minority view requires retreat before using deadly force if the victim can safely do so, unless:
• The attack occurs in the victim’s own home
• The attack occurs while the victim is making a lawful arrest; or
• The assailant is in the process of robbing the victim

19
Q

What is the right of the aggressor to use self-defense?

A

If one is the aggressor in the confrontation, they may use force in defense of themself only if:
• They effectively withdraw from the confrontation and communicate to the other their desire to do so, or
• The victim of the initial aggression suddenly escalates the minor fight into a deadly altercation and the initial aggressor has no chance to withdraw

20
Q

What is the defense of others?

A

A defendant has the right to defend others if they reasonably believe that the person assisted has the legal right to use force in their own defense. All that is necessary is the reasonable appearance of the right to use force. Generally, there need be no special relationship between the defendant and the person in whose defense they acted.

21
Q

What is the defense of a dwelling?

A

A person may use nondeadly force in defense of their dwelling when, and to the extent that, they reasonably believe that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate another’s unlawful entry into or attack upon their dwelling. Deadly force may be used only to prevent a violent entry and when the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent a personal attack on themself or another in the dwelling, or to prevent an entry to commit a felony in the dwelling.

22
Q

What is the defense of other property?

A

a. Defending Possession
Deadly force may never be used in defense of property. Reasonable, nondeadly force may be used to defend property in one’s possession from what they reasonably believe is an imminent, unlawful interference. Force may not be used if a request to desist or refrain from the activity would suffice.
b. Regaining Possession
A person may use force to regain possession of property that they reasonably believe was wrongfully taken only if they are in immediate pursuit of the taker.

23
Q

What is crime prevention?

A

Nondeadly force may be used to the extent that it reasonably appears necessary to prevent a felony or serious breach of the peace. Deadly force may be used only if it appears reasonably necessary to terminate or prevent a dangerous felony involving risk to human life.

24
Q

What is the use of force to effectuate arrest of police officers?

A

Nondeadly force may be used by police officers if reasonably necessary to effectuate an arrest. Deadly force is reasonable only if it is necessary to prevent a felon’s escape and the police officer reasonably believes that the felon threatens death or serious bodily harm. A bystander summoned by a police officer to assist them in making an arrest has the same authority to use force as the officer, and the bystander’s good faith assistance is justified even if it turns out that the officer was exceeding their authority.

25
Q

What is the use of force to effectuate arrest of private persons?

A

A private person has the same right to arrest as a police officer with the following exceptions: A private person has a privilege to use nondeadly force to make an arrest if a crime was in fact committed and the private person has reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested has in fact committed the crime. A private person may use deadly force only if the person harmed was actually guilty of the offense for which the arrest was made.

26
Q

What is resisting arrest?

A

Under the majority rule, nondeadly force may be used to resist an improper arrest even if a known officer is making that arrest. (A minority of courts and the M.P.C. do not allow one to resist a known police officer.) Deadly force may be used, however, only if the person does not know that the person arresting them is a police officer.

27
Q

What is the excuse of duress?

A

It is a defense to a crime other than intentional homicide that the defendant reasonably believed that another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm upon them or a member of their family if the defendant did not commit the crime. Threats to harm a third person may also suffice to establish the defense of duress.

28
Q

What constitute threats to property?

A

Traditionally, threats to property were not sufficient; however, a number of states, consistent with the M.P.C., do allow for threats to property to give rise to a duress defense, assuming that the value of the property outweighs the harm done to society by commission of the crime.

29
Q

What is necessity?

A

It is a defense to a crime that the person reasonably believed that commission of the crime was necessary to avoid an imminent and greater injury to society than that involved in the crime. The test is objective; a good faith belief is not sufficient. Under the traditional common law view, the pressure producing the choice of evils had to come from natural forces; modern cases have abandoned this requirement.

30
Q

What are the limitations to necessity?

A

Limitation—Death
Causing the death of another person to protect property is never justified.
Limitation—Fault
The defense of necessity is not available if the defendant is at fault in creating the situation requiring that they choose between two evils.
Duress Distinguished
Unlike necessity, duress always involves a threat by a human.

31
Q

What is mistake or ignorance of fact?

A

Mistake or ignorance of fact is relevant to criminal liability only if it shows that the defendant lacked the state of mind required for the crime; thus, it is irrelevant if the crime imposes “strict” liability.

32
Q

What is reasonableness?

A

If mistake is offered to “disprove” a specific intent, the mistake need not be reasonable; however, if it is offered to disprove any other state of mind, it must have been a reasonable mistake or ignorance.

33
Q

What is mistake or ignorance of law?

A

Generally, it is not a defense that the defendant believed that their activity would not be a crime, even if that belief was reasonable and based on the advice of an attorney. However, if the reliance on the attorney negates a necessary mental state element, such reliance can demonstrate that the government has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

34
Q

What are the exceptions to mistake or ignorance of the law?

A

The defendant has a defense if: (1) the statute proscribing their conduct was not published or made reasonably available prior to the conduct; (2) there was reasonable reliance on a statute or judicial decision; or (3) in some jurisdictions, there was reasonable reliance on official interpretation or advice.

35
Q

What is entrapment?

A

Entrapment occurs if the intent to commit the crime originated not with the defendant but with law enforcement officers. Entrapment exists only if:
(1) The criminal design originated with law enforcement officers, and
(2) The defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to contact by the government.
Merely providing the opportunity for a predisposed person to commit a crime is not entrapment.

36
Q

Is there entrapment if private inducement or if material for crime provided by government agent?

A

A person cannot be entrapped by a private citizen. Under federal law, an entrapment defense cannot be based solely on the fact that a government agent provided an ingredient for commission of the crime (for example, ingredients for drugs), even if the material provided was contraband.