Defenses Flashcards
(36 cards)
What is insanity?
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.
What is the M’Naghten Rule?
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.
What is the Irresistible impulse test?
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
What is the Durham/New Hampshire test?
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.
What is the ALI or MPC test?
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.
What procedural rules arise when it comes to the insanity defense?
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.
What is the post-acquittal commitment to mental institution?
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.
What is the mental condition during criminal proceedings?
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.
What is diminished capacity?
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
What is intoxication?
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.
What is voluntary intoxication?
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.
What is the defense to specific intent crimes for intoxication?
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).
What is involuntary intoxication?
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.
What is the relationship that insanity has with intoxication?
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.
What is infancy?
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.
What is self-defense and other justification defenses?
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.
What is nondeadly force?
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.
What is deadly force?
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
What is the right of the aggressor to use self-defense?
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
What is the defense of others?
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.
What is the defense of a dwelling?
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.
What is the defense of other property?
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.
What is crime prevention?
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.
What is the use of force to effectuate arrest of police officers?
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.
