Defenses Flashcards
(23 cards)
Defense of a Third Person
RULE
RULE: D is justified in using force to defend a third person to the same extent that the third person would be justified in using force to defend himself
Defense of a Third Person
ASSERTIONS
Can be asserted even when a defendant reasonably but mistakenly believed that a third person was a non-aggressor being unlawfully attacked by another
Can be asserted even when the third person being threatened with harm has no special relationship with the defendant
Defense of Property
RULE
Reasonable, non-deadly force is justified in defending one’s property from theft, destruction, or trespass where the defendant has a reasonable belief that the property is in immediate danger and no greater force than necessary is used.
Defense of Property
PURSUIT
Reasonable, non-deadly force is also justified when used to reenter real property or regain possession of wrongfully taken personal property upon “immediate pursuit.”
Defense of Property
USE OF DEADLY FORCE
Deadly force is never justified when used merely to defend or retrieve property.
However, deadly force may be justified where the defender reasonably believes an entry will be made or attempted in her dwelling by one intending to commit a felony therein
Necessity
RULE
In general, when a person reasonably believes that a perilous circumstance has created an imminent threat of bodily harm, he is justified to use reasonably necessary force to cause a lesser harm so as to avoid the greater harm.
Necessity appropriate when imminent danger is not caused by unlawful actor.
Threat may come from natural or human forces.
D may assert necessity even if threat of bodily harm is only to others
Necessity
REASONABLY NECESSARY FORCE
For the defendant’s force to be reasonably necessary, it must be the case that no less harmful alternative course of action was available to the defendant.
Necessity
EXCEPTION
A defendant cannot successfully assert the defense of necessity when the defendant was at fault in creating the perilous situation
Insanity
M’NAGHTEN TEST
D was laboring under a defect of reason from a disease of the mind, which caused her to not know the nature and quality of her actions or to not know her actions were wrong
Legal and moral wrongs
* Some Js find a D is not insane where, even though D believes the act was not morally wrong, knows it to be illegal
* Some Js find a D who did not know an act was morally wrong to be insane, regardless of his belief as to the act’s legality
Insanity
IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TEST
D insane when, at the time of the commission of the crime, she had a mental disease that kept her from controlling her conduct
Insanity
DURHAM RULE
D insane when, but for his mental disease or defect, the crime would not have been committed
Insanity
MPC
D insane when, because of a mental disease or defect, D lacked the substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality of her conduct (not able to know her conduct is wrong) or conform her conduct to the requirements of the law (not able to control her conduct)
Insanity
D’s BOP
Federal Law – by C&C evidence
ML – by preponderance of the evidence
Voluntary Intoxication
VI is never a defense to strict liability crimes or general-intent crimes because it cannot negate R or N.
VI is a valid defense to specific-intent crimes when it negates the requisite mental state
BOP is on D to prove they were intoxicated, which prevented them from forming the purposeful or knowing mental state
Involuntary Intoxication
II is never a defense to strict liability crimes but can be a defense to general-intent crimes and specific-intent crimes
II is a valid defense when it negated the requisite mental state or caused temporary insanity
Duress RULE
Duress excuses criminal conduct when D reasonably believes that the only way to avoid unlawful threats of great bodily harm or imminent death is to engage in unlawful conduct
Unlike necessity, threat must come from human forces
Not available as a defense to murder; but may be a defense to manslaughter or excuse a charge of F-M if it operates as a defense to the underlying F
Self-Defense
RULE
In general, when a person reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm, he has a right of self-defense that permits the use of reasonably necessary force to prevent such harm
Self-Defense
BELIEF OF NECESSITY
(a) the person asserting the defense must actually and honestly believe that the use of force was necessary to protect herself (the subjective component); and
(b) the belief must be one that a reasonable person would have under the circumstances (the objective component)
Self-Defense
RIGHTS OF INITIAL AGGRESSOR
An initial aggressor does not have a right of self-defense unless the victim of the initial aggression:
(a) observes the initial aggressor’s complete withdrawal; or
(b) escalates the force level by responding with a disproportionate amount of force
Self-Defense
IMMINENT DANGER
Preemptive attacks in anticipation of some future threat of bodily harm are not justifiable
Once an unlawful attack is over, subsequent acts of retaliation or revenge are not justifiable
Self-Defense
REASONABLY NECESSARY FORCE
Force is reasonably necessary when it is proportional to the unlawful attack that the D seeks to thwart and necessary to avoid the harm threatened by the attack
Self-Defense
DEADLY FORCE
Deadly force is reasonably necessary only when it is used to thwart an unlawful attack that threatens death or serious bodily injury
Self-Defense
RETREAT
Majority – a person has no duty to retreat from an attack that threatens deadly force
Minority – a person must retreat if it is feasible and can be done in safety before using deadly force
All Js – no duty to retreat if it cannot be done safely or if the D is in her own home, vehicle, or workplace
