Justifications and excuses

Question 1

Justifications

Answer 1

Affirmative Defense that negates the actus reus; responds to forces outside the actor; can exculpate otherwise criminal conduct

Question 2

Self Defense (C/L) (4)

Answer 2

1. D’s reas. belief that
2. Conduct of another poses a threat of death or great bodily harm, AND
3. Such harm is “imminent” so that
4. Use of deadly force is “necessary” to protect D

Question 3

Castle Doctrine

Answer 3

• No duty to retreat in your own home before using deadly force
• If both D and attacker are cohabitants @ dwelling, there is not a duty to retreat in most jdx

Question 4

Aggressor Rule

Answer 4

A person who is the original aggressor cannot invoke self defense

Under MPC, right to self defense may be regained “by so far breaking off the struggle that any renewal by the other party can be viewed as distinct engagement”

Question 5

Imperfect Self Defense

Answer 5

D committed killing because of an HONEST yet UNREASONABLE belief of the IMMINENCE OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM

Question 6

Battered Women’s Syndrome / DV

Answer 6

• A person who is repeatedly battered can warp their sense of immediacy and can interpret stimulus as signs of danger or threats that another person may not.
• Evidence of a battered defendant is relevant and admissible in determining if a person acted reasonably under the circumstances.

Question 7

Defense of Others

Answer 7

• A person may only use deadly force to defend another if they reasonably believe that person is faced with deadly force and intervention is immediately necessary (otherwise, can only use reasonable force)

Question 8

Alter Ego Rule

Answer 8

• Traditionally, if force was unlawful, Defense of Others would be unavailable because the defender had no more right to defend the 3rd party than the 3rd party themselves (“Alter Ego Rule”)
• Recently courts are more likely to permit this defense to be used based on a REASONABLE BELIEF

Question 9

Necessity (C/L)

Answer 9

Only allowed when defendant faces imminent injury with no viable alternative other than a violation of the law.

Typically a defense to respond to threats from natural sources e.g. I must trespass to escape bear

Question 10

Crawford Test (5)

Answer 10

1. D is in present, imminent peril of death/serious bodily injury (or reasonable belief he/others are in that danger)
2. D not intentionally/recklessly in situation that forced him to choose criminal conduct
3. No legal alternative to possessing handgun
4. Handgun made available without any preconceived design
5. D gives up handgun as soon as necessity ends

Question 11

Excuses: Duress (3/4)

Answer 11

Arises when an individual is faced with a threat of death/serious bodily injury and chooses to commit a crime rather than suffer the threatened consequences

CONTENTO PACHON
1. An immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury,
2. A well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out AND
3. No reasonable opportunity to escape

In prison escape, 4. D must submit to proper authorities after safe

Excuse to human threats; similar to choice of evils

Question 12

Excuses: Insanity Tests (5)

Answer 12

1. M’Naghten Test
2. Cognitive Incapacity
3. Moral Incapacity
4. Volitional Incapacity/”Irresistable Impulse”
5. Product of Mental Illness

Question 13

M’Naghten Test (2)

Answer 13

Defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if because of disease of the mind:
1. he did not understand the nature and quality of the act, OR
2. if he did know the N&Q, did not understand that the act was wrong.

Question 14

Cognitive Incapacity

Answer 14

Doesn’t understand nature and quality of act

M’Naghten 1

Question 15

Moral Incapacity

Answer 15

Doesn’t know the act is wrong

M’Naghten 2

Question 16

Volitional Incapacity / Irresistible Impulse

Answer 16

May know act is wrong but cannot resist carrying out the act anyway

Question 17

Product of Mental Illness

Answer 17

Eliminates right/wrong dichotomy. “Was the conduct a product of mental illness?”