Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Defenses (Affirmative Defense (D admits that P has met its burden of proof…

- - - - D claims did the right thing or took the most appropriate action under the circumstances.
        
        Self Defense
        
        D would claim that did what society would have wanted him to do . Reasonably believed these things under a reasonable person standard even if mistake. perfect defense
        
        D was threatened w/ an imminent threat or unlawful force
        
        the force D uses was necessary to repel the threat. treat is real and response is necessary to repel the threath
        
        only way. if another non deadly force could have been used then not rational
        
        general doctrine: Castle Doctrine: can use deadly force if attacked in one's home or immediate surrounding premises. no duty to retreat
        
        1 more item...
        
        BWS: women is an intimate relationship who repeteatedly subjects her to forceful physical/psych abuse from life threatening to extreme verbal harassment
        
        4 more items...
        
        the force used was proportionate to the threatened force
        
        D must not have been initial aggressor
        
        Reasonableness OBJ STANDARD even if mistaken dont have to be accurate
        
        based on circumstances of D in that situation
        
        D's knowledge of the person
        
        physical attributes of person involved
        
        D's previous experience
        
        need to be raised in case of mistake
        
        Imperfect SD:
        
        D believes satisfies SD elements but not reasonable
        
        CL: convicted of Murder no SD claim
        
        other states: VL ML
        
        MPC: Reckless or NG in having a belief about necessity of force under the circumstances
        
        Defense of others: needs to satisfy all SD requirements. defense of a third party in imminent danger.
        
        Modern + MPC: can defend any 3rd party stranger if its reasonable and satisfies SD elements
        
        Defense of Habitation:
        
        Cl modified: restricted to necessary force to imminent unlawful entry + intruder intends to commit a felony or cause injury to any occupant
        
        more modified CL: unlawful entry and kill
        
        can be described as accelerated SD or defense of others
        
        Defense of Property
        
        no deadly force can be use
        
        unless used w/other defense
        
        Necessity: obj perspective harm caused by breaking the law is less than the harm avoided by the action. response to a dire situation
        
        CL:
        
        harm the D was seeking to avoid was greater than the harm the D would cause by breaking the law. = balance
        
        D was seeking to avoid a clear and imminent danger
        
        reasonable to believe illegal conduct = would abate threatened harm
        
        No effective legal alternatives were present
        
        no legislation preclusion
        
        D did not create the dangerous situation
        
        CL: would not accepts as defense for homicide
        
        MPC: no imminence req and accepts it as a defense for homicide
      - focuses on the correctness or justness of D's actions
      - Accomplice LB: If D is justified in violating a law, D's AC is presumed to not have violated it either.
    - - D claims that his act was wrong but asks to be excused for some reason
        
        Insanity
        
        D admits that his act was wrong but asks for leniency on the ground that a defect in his mental condition prevented him from knowing right or wrong or being able to control his actions.
        
        issue for 3 stages
        
        before trial, incompetent to stand trial.
        
        does not understand proceedings or assisting counsel in presenting case = diminished capacity. will be suspended until d is deemed competent
        
        should be found not guilty for reason of insanity
        
        Test insanity at time of committing the crime
        
        4 more items...
        
        those who have lost contact w/ reality and are beyond any influence of the law. don't care for their actions.
        
        hiding of evidence not insanity
        
        history of institution not defense if release
        
        religious beliefs or spouse unfauthfulness are irrelevant
        
        ex. deific decree: know laws but god told you to do it not morally resp
        
        preponderance of the evidence that D was legally insane @ time of killing + cause it. insanity caused it no other purpose.
        
        insanity caused him to believe his action was permissable
        
        Duress:
        
        D claims she was threatened by another person w/ physical force (to herself or 3rd person) unless she committed a specific crime.
        
        imminent threat from an specific individual to do the crime now
        
        D has a reasonable fear that the threat would be carried out unless she committed an specified crime
        
        D has no reasonable opportunity to escape the crime
        
        MPC: can be defense to murder
        
        CL: not a defense to murder
        
        Intoxication
        
        VL ITX
        
        CL:
        
        Specific intent
        
        D will be allowed to present evidence of itx
        
        1 more item...
        
        General Intent
        
        D will not be permitted to introduce evidence of itx
        
        incomplete defense: voluntarily taking a substance knowing to be intoxicating.
        
        not a defense to general intent but maybe specific
        
        INVL ITX
        
        CL:
        
        evidence negates both specific and general intent
        
        complete defense
        
        gives temporary insanity defense
        
        only if the defendant did not know the substance ingested was intoxicating or was excessive and D did not know he was unusually susceptible, or if she consumed it knowing that it was intoxicating but under direct and immediate duress.
      - focuses on individual blameworthiness or culpability
      - Accomplice LB: excuses are considered personal to the actor. ACC may still be found guilty despite D was excused
- - - - Unconsciousness
      - Mistake in Fact
        
        flip side of MR. D commits a prohibited act w/ a belief that is incorrect or wrong
        
        CL
        
        specific intent crime: an honest mistake that negates the specific intent req for commission of the offense is a complete defense.
        
        complete defense: not need to be reasonable as long as in good faith
        
        general intent crime: a MOF that negates an element of the crime must be both honest + reasonable to exculpate
        
        even if honest and reasonable mistake can still be charged b/c D's conduct was immoral and if D would have been guilty of some other crime