CHAPTER 8

1. CHAPTER 8 Defenses

2. Recognizing Defenses • If the offender’s state of mind is compromised while committing the crime, the law may reduce his criminal liability

3. Raising Affirmative Defenses • If the defendant raises a defense, she has the burden of production • The burden of production is the minimal amount of evidence for the jury to consider the issue

4. Justified or Excused Defense? • Justified defense: Self-defense • Excuseddefense: The offender has defective mens rea – the insane

5. Competency • The defendant must possess the mental faculties to be a meaningful participant in all stages of the criminal trial process

6. Competency to Stand Trial • To be competent to stand trial, a defendant must: 1. Understand the nature of the court proceedings against him, and 2. Assist his counsel in his defense

7. Alibi and Consent • Alibi: At the time the crime occurred the defendant was somewhere else • Consent: The willing participation of the victim may influence the mens rea of the defendant, e.g., defense for rape

8. Mistake • Mistake in fact: When the offender takes certain action believing certain facts to be true which, upon later discovery, are not true • Mistake in law: When the offender believes certain legal principles do or do not apply to him, and he is mistaken

9. Infancy • Irrebuttablepresumption: Children 7 and under cannot form mens rea • Rebuttablepresumption: Children 8-14 do not have the capacity to form mens rea, - This presumption can be overcome by showing that the child had the capacity to appreciate the criminality of her conduct

10. Intoxication • The depression of one’s central nervous system by the ingestion of alcohol or drugs, both illegal and prescription • The state must recognize the defense to reduce criminal responsibility

11. Duress 1. Imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death 2. Apparent ability to carry out the threat 3. No reasonable opportunity to escape the harm other than to commit the crime

12. M’Naghten Test for Insanity If, at the time the accused committed crime, he was suffering under such a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind that he: 1. Did not know what he was doing was wrong 2. Did not know the nature and quality of his act

13. Guilty But Mentally Ill (“GBMI”) • Jury finding the offender was mentally ill, but not legally insane, at the time he committed the crime

14. Irresistible Impulse • Defendant simply could not control his impulses when he committed the offense • No emotional brakes between irrational thoughts and the criminal conduct

15. Diminished capacity • Mental disorder may be “any mental abnormality regardless of its medical label, origin, or source . . .” • Negates specific intent mens rea in some statutes

16. Clark v. Arizona (2006) • Issue: Whether Arizona's use of its own insanity defense violates Clark’s due process rights to a fair trial? • Holding: No. Arizona can use the right/wrong test for insanity AND limit the evidence a defendant can introduce to negate the mens rea element of murder

17. Statute of Limitations • Time limits defined by statute in which criminal prosecutions (and civil cases) may be brought • No statute of limitation for murder prosecutions

18. Necessity 1. Faced with two evils and chose the lesser 2. Acted to prevent imminent harm 3. There was a relationship between conduct and the harm to be avoided 4. There were no legal alternatives

19. Self-defense 1. The victim was confronted 2. With an immediate physical threat 3. And used a reasonable amount of force 4. To repel the attack

20. Defense of Others • One can claim self defense on behalf of another who is being attacked • Defender can act as if “standing in the victim’s shoes”

21. Imperfect self defense Reduces murder to manslaughter when: 1. One provokes the attack 2. Is the initial aggressor, and then is attacked 3. Force used in self-defense to repel an attack was unreasonable

22. Battered Women’s Syndrome (“BWS”) • A type of self defense whose focus is on the victim’s acute perception of the continuing physical threats within the relationship • Explains why a victim may kill their abuser when he is not posing an immediate threat of physical harm

23. Pennsylvania v. Stonehouse (1986) • Issue: Was the defendant denied a fair trial in the killing of her abusive boyfriend because her lawyer failed to introduce evidence of BWS? • Holding: Yes. The jury should have been informed about the legal relevance of a history of physical abuse where self-defense is an issue at trial

24. Defense of Property • Generally one cannot use deadly force to solely defend property, such as setting up a booby trap rigged to kill upon entry • If inside the property at the time of the breaking and entry, force may be used

25. Entrapment • Outrageous government conduct which induces one, who is not otherwise predisposed, to commit a crime

26. Pennsylvania v. Thompson (1984) • Issue: Did the lower court make a mistake by finding that the police conduct did not amount to entrapment? • Holding: Yes. The defendant, a police officer, was entrapped by his fellow police officers