I. Defenses to criminal liability
A. Three legitimate types
1. Alibi—individual proves it was impossible for him to have committed the crime
2. Justification—she’s responsible, but the act was justified
3. Excuse—he committed the wrong but isn’t responsible for his action
B. Affirmative defense
1. Defendants have some responsibility to prove their defenses
2. Government has some responsibility to disprove defenses
C. Results of defendants’ successful proof of defense
1. Perfect defenses—an acquittal results
2. Imperfect defenses—reduce the crime to a lesser offense
3. Mitigating circumstances—reduce the penalty for the crime
D. Motive can influence punishment and sometimes liability
II. Justifications based on necessity
A. Necessity and the rule of law
1. Government has the monopoly on force under the rule of law
2. Necessity justifies violating the rule of law by allowing individuals to take the law into their own hands
3. Strictly limited to situations that meet three conditions
a. The necessity is great
b. The danger of harm is imminent
c. For prevention only
B. Five types of justification defenses
1. Self-defense
2. Defense of others
3. Defense of home and property
4. Choice-of-evils defense
5. Defense of consent
III. Self-defense
A. The elements of self-defense
1. Unprovoked attack (total withdrawal by attackers an exception)
2. Honest and reasonable belief in imminent (not present) danger of death or serious bodily injury
3. Honest and reasonable belief in the need to defend against attack right now—present danger
4. Reasonable (not excessive) force to repel attack
B. The retreat doctrine
1. Two rules
a. You have to retreat if escape is reasonable (most states)
b. If you didn’t start the fight, you can stand your ground even if you could escape by retreating (a few states)
2. Castle exception—retreat from home not required; you can stand your ground
IV. The defense of others
A. Who’s included
1. Most states include individuals in a “special relationship”
2. Some states include anyone in imminent danger of harm
B. Defense applies only to those who can claim the right to defend themselves
V. The defense of home and property
A. Rooted in ancient idea that our homes are our castles
B. Extension of the right of self-defense
C. Limits to using deadly force vary by state
1. Must have reasonable belief intruders intend to commit
a. Violent felonies against occupants
b. Any felony
c. Any offense
2. Area covered
a. Entry into occupied home
b. Entry into curtilage
VI. The choice-of-evils defense
A. Basic idea—immediate necessity justifies choosing to commit a lesser crime to avoid the harm of a greater crime
B. Elements
1. Identify evils (usually in legislation)
2. Rank evils (usually in legislation)
3. Choose the lesser evil to avoid imminent harm from the greater evil
VII. The defense of consent
A. Justification—the value of individual autonomy in a free society
B. Consent is not a defense, but there are four exceptions
1. No serious injury results from consent
2. Injury occurs during sporting events
3. Consent benefits the person who consents (patient consents to surgery)
4. Consent is to sexual conduct
C. Exceptions are necessary to the defense but not enough unless consent is also voluntary and knowing
I. Excuses
A. Difference between justification and excuse
1. Justification—“I am responsible, but, under the circumstances, I did the right thing”
2. Excuse—“I did wrong, but, under the circumstances, I’m not responsible”
B. Circumstances affecting responsibility
1. Actus reus—the act was involuntary
2. Mens rea—a mental disease or defect left him unable to form criminal intent
C. Origins of circumstances
1. Abnormal people—have a mental disease or defect or their age impairs their reasoning skills
a. Insanity
b. Diminished capacity
c. Age
2. Abnormal situations
a. Duress
b. Intoxication
c. Entrapment
d. Syndrome
II. Insanity
A. Definition—defendant was so mentally diseased, he couldn’t form intent or control his actions
B. A legal, but not a medical, concept
C. Rationale—can’t blame people who aren’t responsible
D. Consequence—commitment, not freedom
E. Tests
1. Right-wrong elements
a. Mental disease (psychosis) or defect (retardation) damaged reason at the time of the crime
b. Defendant didn’t know (simple awareness)
(1) Nature of her actions
(2) Right or wrong
(a) Legal wrong
(b) Moral wrong
2. Product-of-mental illness elements
a. Checks for both reason and will
b. Acts that are a product of mental illness excuse criminal liability
3. Irresistible impulse elements
a. Defendant had a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime
b. Defendant knew the nature of act and knew it was wrong
c. The mental disease or defect caused an impulse he couldn’t control
4. Substantial capacity elements
a. The mental disease or defect damages either or both reason and will
b. The mental disease or defect causes
(1) Substantial (not complete) lack of reason and control
(2) Failure to appreciate (not just purely intellectual awareness of) nature or wrongfulness
(3) Failure to conform behavior to law
F. Burden of proof
1. Federal standard
a. Government has to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt
b. Defense has only to raise a reasonable doubt about sanity
2. Most states—affirmative defense
a. Defendant must show some evidence of insanity
b. Government then has to prove sanity (in varying levels, depending on the state)
(1) Beyond a reasonable doubt
(2) With clear and convincing evidence
(3) By a preponderance of the evidence
III. Diminished capacity
A. Mental disease or defect diminishes capacity but not enough to qualify as insanity
B. Limited to diseases or defects that make it impossible to form the specific intent required to commit the crime
IV. Age
A. Immaturity excuses criminal liability
B. Age of maturity varies, but three stages
1. Early childhood—can’t form criminal intent
2. Middle childhood—rebuttable presumption against capacity to form intent
3. Adult—conclusive presumption of capacity to form intent
C. Age can aggravate as well as excuse criminal responsibility
V. Duress
A. Definition—individuals who commit crimes because they’re threatened with harm if they don’t
B. Three grounds for the defense
1. No actus reus
2. No mens rea
3. Sound public policy
C. Elements
1. Qualifying crimes vary from minor to serious (never for homicide)
2. Kinds of threats vary from kill to do serious bodily harm
3. From instant to imminent threat
4. Measurement of belief regarding threats varies as to objective or subjective
VI. Intoxication
A. Voluntary is no excuse
B. Involuntary is an excuse
VII. Entrapment
A. Definition—persuading someone to commit a crime she wouldn’t otherwise commit
B. Defense of entrapment is not a constitutional right
C. Subjective test (majority rule)
1. Did criminal intent originate with the government?
2. Was the defendant predisposed to the commit crime?
D. Objective test (minority rule)
1. Did criminal intent originate with the government?
2. Would ordinary law-abiding people be tempted to commit the crime?
3. Dismiss even if the defendant is predisposed
VIII. Syndrome elements
A. Groups of symptoms impair mental capacity
B. Affects defendant’s capacity to form specific intent
C. Expert testimony is used to inform the jury of the syndrome