General Defenses to Crimes Flashcards
(33 cards)
Self Defense
Looking back in time for defenses and going to evaluate if the D responded to conduct on the part of the V in a way that D is arguing that D was responding to conduct of the V that excused
what is D seeking using self defense?
D is seeking an outcome of a non-guilty verdict
Whether one can use self-defense as a justification when they were provoking in the altercation that led to the V’s death
No
Elements of self defense claim
- Unlawful and immediate Threat of death or serious bodily harm against D
- Can be actual or apparent - D must have an objectively reasonable belief
- Imminent peril
- Response through the use of force is necessary
Key element of self defense?
Imminent threat
Aggressor can revive self defense claim when
They inform you that they are backinng away from the situation and do not want to no longer engage
Defense of other
→ intervenor provides self-defense to a third party
Alter ego rule (older rule)
- Alter ego rule (older rule)= a D can be placed in a 3rd party position and therefore can protect V
- Put themselves in the place of the third party
- Can defend if the third party has a right of defense
- This rule implies that if the 3rd party did not have right to self defense then defendant did not either
Defense of others: most states rule
Most states provide if intervenor acts on basis on reasonable belief the defense applies to intervenor
– Even if D is not justified just need reasonable belief
Is lethal force permitted in defense of personal property?
No. can use reasonable force to prevent crime from happening
Can D use force when protecting property?
Yes
- D has the authority to use force when protecting their habitation
- D must reasonably believe that the intruder posed a danger to the occupants of the home (majority rule)
Law Enforcement: Can they kill for a misdemeanor?
No. Deadly force is not justified to prevent commission of a misdemeanor or to arrest person for misdemeanor in flight
when can officers use force?
- Officers can only use force if they are pursuing a fleeing felon
- Who is posing a significant threat of death or serious threat of harm to an officer or others
- OFFICER ALSO MUST ISSUE A WARNING
Necessity v. self defense
– Necessity defense – meant that it is necessary for D to use lethal force to ward off an imminent threat of serious bodily harm
– D can engage in a lower crime for purposes of preventing further harm (choice of 2 emails)
Duress Defense elements
- Immediate threat of death/serious bodily injury
— Immediacy – Threat of injury was present, immediate, or impeding - Well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out
- No reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm
—-Escapability – D must show there was no reasonable opportunity to escape
Does intoxication negate the mens rea for a specific intent crime and thereby serve as a defense to the crime?
Yes. Intoxication negates the mens rea of a specific-intent crime and thereby serves as a defense, but it does not negate the mens rea of a general-intent crime.
Does voluntary intoxication negate mens rea for crimes that require a D to want to cause a specific result?
Yes
Voluntary Intoxication: Common Law
-The doctrine of voluntary intoxication to negate mens
-VI to the extent that it does prevent D from formulating the requisite mens rea = negates mens rea
Voluntary intoxication: 2nd apporach
- Juridictions limit VI that it can mitigate a higher degree of murder to a lower degree of murder
- Can be convicted of M2 rather than M1
Voluntary intoxication: 3rd approach
- States have abolished VI as a means of rebutting criminal charges
- If D VI, they can be charged with the crime
mental illness v. Insanity
A person can be mentally ill but legally sane
How does jury learn whether a particular D has the capacity to be subject to criminal punishment?
Expert testimony
Once they testify → expert determines whether to believe it or not
problem because expert is taking over jury’s job
M’Naughten Rule
- Entirely cognitive
- Based on the proposition that D is not even aware that they are doing
- D could not control themselves from engaging in this conduct
Cognitive principle for insanity
Mental grounds
M’Naughten
