Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
DEFENSES - Coggle Diagram
DEFENSES
Legality Principles
-
Retroactivity is prohibited by constitutional due process (can't apply criminal law backwards to conduct that's already been done)
Ad Hocery occurs when there is inconsistent application of a legal standard, which goes against stare decisis
Rule of Lenity was designed to protect legality principles, but keep in mind this is a tool for courts and not required (if there's ambiguity, courts can provide guidance on interpretation to favor the defendant)
-
vagueness in a statutory term is unavoidable, but it must be resolved by looking at drafting legislature's intent and precedent of statute interpretation (term is unclear because it's a categorical term, which could be broad or narrow: for example, would an alligator be a "pet" for a pet-sitter?
Ambiguity in a statutory term is unavoidable, but it must be resolved by looking at drafting legislature's intent and precedent of statute interpretation (term has more than one meaning, for example sharp)
Willful Blindness (when one is AWARE that some facts may be certain but deliberately does not check)
Common Law
The State must show that the defendant acted "knowingly, i.e. the defendant was ACTUALLY AWARE
-
-
Mistake of Law
Common Law
GENERAL RULE: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. There is a presumption that you know the law if it's knowable, which goes back to legality principles.
-
EXCEPTIONS
-
Different Law Mistake: If it is a SPECIFIC INTENT crime, and defendant makes a mistake about another law that negates his mens rea for the actual law, then the defendant gets a defense.
A breakdown/different explanation: STEP 1: Determine that it is specific intent. STEP 2: Determine that the defendant was mistaken about the law, i.e. did not know another law was in play (think of the mechanic statute on the handout that was in play but the lady did not know about). STEP 3: The mistake negated the specific intent element.
Reasonable Reliance: (1) There was an actual mistake in the law that was later found to be erroneous. OR (2) The interpretation has came from someone allowed to interpret the statute, i.e. one legally charged or empowered with the responsibility of interpreting the statute.
EXAMPLE for (1): a statute that says you can sell alcohol to people 20 years old. I sell liquor to a 20 year old. I get arrested for it because the person had to have been 21. I get the MoL defense because I reasonably relied on the statute that was actually erroneous.
EXAMPLE for (2): The county judge told me I can sell liquor to 20 year olds even though the statute says 21. I get arrested. I get the MoL defense because I reasonably relied on the judge, someone legally charged to interpret the law.
MPC 2.04
MoL is a defense if it negates the requisite level of culpability for any material element (2.04(1)(a)) or if the law says that MoL is a defense (2.04(1)(b))
MoL is a defense if (1) the statute is not known to the actor and (2) has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct (2.04(3)(a))
MoL is a defense if the defendant was reasonably relying on the official statement of law later determined to be invalid or erroneous: this includes statutes and official interpretation from an entity responsible for interpreting the law (2.04(3)(b)).
-