Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Criminal Law - Coggle Diagram

- - - - introduces additional evidence that justifies or excuses D's behaviour, such that D is not liabkle despite committing the offense.
    - - merely challenge the prosecution's burden of prrod on an element of the offense, often mens rea
  - - - Mistake of Fact
        
        Absolves D of liability if mistake is reasonable
      - Mistake of Law
        
        Not a defense, with narrow exceptions
        
        Exceptions
        
        Ignorance of a law that punishes omissions
        
        Reasonable reliance on a Statue or Court Decision
        
        Reasonable reliance on Official Interpretations of the Law
        
        Law not reasonably avaialble to D; related to principles of fair warning
    - - Factual Impossibility
        
        Not defense, as attempt demonstrates D' culpable criminal tendencies
      - Legal Impossibility
        
        Trivial; merely expresses truism that it si no crime to commit an act that is not a crime
    - - Voluntary; D knows or should know substance causes intoxication
        
        Allowed if VI negates any element of the crime
        
        Not allowed if D intoxicated to commit crime
        
        Not allowed where intoxication is an element of the crime
      - Involuntary
        
        Addition is not sufficient
        
        a defnse if inxtocation puts D in same state of mind as required for insanity defense
        
        D did not know the nature of quality of the act; or
        
        D did not know that what he was doing was wrong
      - ingesting a substance that he knows or should know tend to cause intoxication
    - - Because of some mental disorder or condition, D unable to form mens rea of specific-intent or some higher-level mental state
        
        Sanity is complete defense; this only reduces crime charge to a lesser crime that requires a less severe mens rea; does not necessarily erase criminal liability
    - - Competency to stand trial is different
        
        D is unable to appreciate and understand the nature of the charges and proceedings; and
        
        rationally assist the defence counsel in defending the case
      - Tests
        
        M'Naghten Rule; most widely used
        
        As a result of a Mental disease or defect, D did not know the nature or quality of the criminal act; or
        
        if D did know, he did not know what he was doing was wrong
        
        Irresistible-Impulse
        
        AS a result of mental disease of defect, D could not restrain herself from performing the criminal act
        
        MPC
        
        As a result of mental disease or defect, D lacks substantial capacity to 1) appreciate the criminality (wronfulness) of his conduct, or 2) confirm his conduct to the reqquirements of the law
    - - Elements
        
        D committed the crime to preven an imminent and substantial harm
        
        no reasonable alternative course of action available to D, and
        
        harm caused was less than harm avoided
      - Applies if D commit crime to avoid greater harm
      - Usually does not apply if D intentionally, recklessly, or negligently brought about the situation that led D to commit the crime
        
        Mens rea that negates the defense is usually the same mens rea that is required for the crime
    - - right to use force to defend against imminent use of unlawful force by another person
        
        D must actually and reasonably believe;
        
        Imperfect self-defense
        
        that force is necessary;
        
        to proctect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by another person
        
        Right to use deadly force only in response to force that threatens imminent death or serious injury; in many jurisdiction, can be used to defende against especially serious crimes
        
        Proportionate use of force
      - Duty to retreat
        
        Majority rule: no duty to retred before using deadly force in self-defense, unless D deemd initial aggresor
        
        Minorrity rule: duty to retreat before using deadly force, if able to retreat with reasonable safety
        
        Castle doctrine
      - Initial aggresor
        
        May not exercise right of self-defense
        
        unless
        
        Aggressor provokes altercation using nondeadly focrse and is met by either the use or imminent threat of deadly force or disproportionate nondealy focre; or
        
        Aggresor provokes altercation and the nwithdraws from it, providing reasonable notice of withdrawal to other party
    - - Same elements as self-defense, but in the context of saving another
        
        Mistake
        
        Minority view: the alter-ego rule
        
        Majority approach: the reasonable rule
        
        Reasonable belief that use of force is justified, even if belief is mistaken
    - - D may use nondeadly force to defend property if:
        
        force is reasonably necessary to prevent;
        
        not reasonable is intereference can be prevented with cerbal request of warning
        
        Imminent and;
        
        unlawful interference with
        
        real or personal property that is
        
        in D's possession
        
        Hot-pusuit doctrine applies
      - Deadly force cannot be used
        
        unless
        
        interference with property is accompanied by a threat of deadly force to a person, or
        
        person is defending his home in specific circumstances
      - Defence of habitation
        
        Most juris's permit use of deadly force to protect habitation, if D reasonably believe that some is entering with intent to commit a felony or cause bodily harm.
        
        Some courts extend habitation beyond dwelling, such as hotel room or another's home
    - - Applies if D acts
        
        under imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm
        
        to himself or another, and
        
        reasonably believe that harm will occur if D does not perform the otherwise-criminal act