Defenses Flashcards
Insanity
Note: it’s a legal standard and not a medical standard.
Its also an affirmative defense, meaning the defendant is presumed to be of normal capabilities until proved otherwise.
M’Naghten Rule
The defendant is entitled to acquittal if a disease of the mind caused a defect of reason such that the defendant lacked the ability to either know the wrongfulness of his actions or understand the nature and quality of his actions at the time he performed them.
Irresistible Impulse Test
The defendant is entitled to acquittal if, because of mental illness, he was unable to control his actions or conform his conduct to the law. (Basically, the defendant has an impulse he cannot resist.)
Durham Test
The defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was a product of the mental illness. (Perhaps it may be easier to think of this as a “but for” test; but for the mental illness, the defendant would not have done the act.)
ALI/MPC Test
A mix of the M’Naghten and Irresistible Impulse tests.
The defendant is entitled to acquittal if he had a mental defect and because of that mental defect he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the law.
Intoxication
May be caused by any substance (e.g., drugs, alcohol, prescription medication) and it may be voluntary or involuntary.
Voluntary Intoxication
The intentional taking, without duress, of a substance that is known to be intoxicating. It is only a defense to specific intent crimes if the intoxication prevents formation of the required intent. (Needless to say, if the defendant intentionally gets intoxicated in order to establish a defense, the defense is not available.)
Involuntary intoxication
Tesult from taking an intoxicating substance:
without knowledge of its nature (i.e. being drugged or ruffied),
pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the substance’s intoxicating effect (e.g., A prescribes B pain medication and it gives B violent hallucinations),
or if the intoxicating substance is ingested under direct duress of another (e.g., “drink this or I will hurt you”).
Interestingly, the law treats involuntary intoxication like a mental illness and the defendant is entitled to acquittal if she meets the jurisdiction’s insanity test.
Deadly force
Justified only to prevent death or serious bodily injury.
Duress
Applies to any crime besides an intentional homocide
where the defendant reasonably believed that another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm upon him or a member of his family if he did not commit the crime.
For example, if A tells B “go in the store and steal food for me or I will shoot your daughter” while waving a gun at the daughter and B steals the food, B has the excuse of duress. However, if A tells B “go in the store and shoot the owner because he refused to serve me or I will shoot your daughter,” and B actually shoots and kills the owner, which is a homicide, duress is not an available defense.
Mistake or ignorance regarding a fact
Will only affect criminal guilt if it shows that the defendant lacked the required state of mind for the crime.
If you are dealing with a specific intent crime, any mistake of fact, whether reasonable or unreasonable, is enough.
If you are dealing with a general intent or malice crime, the mistake must be reasonable.
Because strict liability offenses don’t have a state of mind requirement, mistake of fact is never a defense.
Mistake of Law
Generally, it is not a defense to a crime that the defendant was unaware that his acts were prohibited by criminal law or that he mistakenly believed that his actions were not prohibited by law. There are exceptions, such as cases where the criminal statute was not published (makes sense, defendant didn’t know because she could not know).
Mistake of Law
Generally, it is not a defense to a crime that the defendant was unaware that his acts were prohibited by criminal law or that he mistakenly believed that his actions were not prohibited by law. There are exceptions, such as cases where the criminal statute was not published (makes sense, defendant didn’t know because she could not know).
Constitutional Bars to Conviction
The statute defining the crime is unconstitutionally vague, such that ordinary people would not understand what behavior is prohibited. (This is a 5th and 14th Amendment Due Process issue.)
The penalty or sentence is so disproportionate to the crime that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. (This is an 8th Amendment issue.)
The prosecution and conviction involves the same or related crimes based on the same conduct. (This may be a 5th Amendment issue dealing with double jeopardy.)
