Defenses part 1
What are the elements of necessity?
1. Honest and reasonable belief
2. that conduct is necessary (imminence and no other alternative)
3. to prevent greater harm
4. to persons or property
What is the CA Insanity rule?
The M'Naghten Test: D is deemed insane if as a result of mental disease, they are incapable of knowing the nature and quality of their act OR distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.
Likely follows societal moral wrong test and utilizes a broader deific decree exception that only requires sincere belief grounded in generally accepted or moral principles derived from an external source.
Is diminished capacity a defense?
No, it is a mens rea challenge to be specific
what is the common law mens rea for attempt?
Specific Intent
Under the common law can you attempt reckless murder?
No, it is impossible to to have both intent and no intent via reckless murder
What is the defense of dwelling rule in the common law?
Defense of dwelling can be used when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent forcible entry of the dwelling and warning was given to the intruder and they did not desist
What is the MPC rule for necessity?
D is justified in using necessity to avoid harm or evil to themselves or other when considering the following factors: (1) harm or evil avoided greater than harm prevented by law; (2) there are no predetermined exceptions to the specific situation and (3) legislative purpose to exclude justification is not plain
Can D withdraw as an accomplice under the common law or MPC?
Common law - For D to withdraw, they must: (1) articulate withdrawal from principal and (2) make legitimate efforts to neutralize the assistance offered
MPC -
D must either:
Completely deprive his aid of effectiveness
Give police timely warning, or
Make proper effort to prevent commission of crime
What is the mens rea for solicitation in the common law and MPC?
Common law --> specific intent
MPC --> purpose
Is abandonment a defense for attempt in CA, Common Law, or the MPC?
It is not a defense in CA or the common law.
It is a defense in the MPC and requires that D completely and voluntarily renounce criminal purpose
what is the CA rule on the aggressor exception for self defense?
A non-deadly aggressor regains the right to self defense when they are threatened with deadly force. This is a full defense!
What is a mistake of non-governing law under common law and MPC?
Non-governing law → refers only to significance of a criminal element and is only a defense for specific intent crimes. It negates the mens rea.
The same applies to the MPC except it is available for all mens rea and simply needs to negate the mens rea
What is the MPC actus reus for attempt?
D takes a substantial step to strongly corroborate completion of such crime
What is the rule for transferred intent for attempt in CA, MPC, and Common law?
CA --> No transferred intent, but the kill zone does exist
Common Law --> No transferred intent
MPC --> No transferred intent
Is factual impossibility a defense to attempt?
What about legal impossibility?
NO, and legal impossibility only exists in the common law (especially for the legal impossibility of attempting to kill a corpse.)
What is the MPC/ALI Insanity defense standard?
D will be deemed insane, if as a result of mental diseases or defect, he lacks substantial capacity to either:
Appreciate criminality of his conduct (wrongfulness), OR
Conform conduct to requirements of the law (lacks control)
What is the burden of proof for defenses generally?
Typically on the D to prove by a preponderance of the evidence. However, CA and the MPC put the burden of proof on the prosecution for self defense. The insanity defense is on the D to prove by a preponderance of the evidence.
How is diminished capacity used CA, Common law, and MPC?
Common Law → used as defense for specific intent, not general intent
CA → used as defense for specific intent, not general intent
MPC → used to negate mens rea of any crime
What is the mens rea for accomplice liability under the MPC and common law?
Common law: dual mens rea that requires (1) intent to assist perpetrator and (2)
Result --> underlying offense
Conduct --> purpose
Circumstance --> limited case law, knowledge ?
MPC: dual mens rea that requires (1) purpose to assist perpetrator and (2)
Result --> underlying offense
Conduct --> purpose
Circumstance --> Depends on jx
What are the differences between the MPC and the common law for solicitation?
Punishment -> common law is significantly reduced but MPC charges for the full offense
Type of crime -> Common law only felonies and serious misdemeanors apply, but MPC both misdemeanors and felonies apply
Stauts of D --> in common law, the D cannot be the perpetrator, and MPC the D can be the perpetrator
Mens rea --> Common law requires specific intent and MPC requires purpose
What are the Lovercamp/CA/Majority rules for prison escape?
1. D faced with specific threat of death, forcible sexual assault, or SBI in immediate future
2. History of complaints or futile complaints or no time to complain
3. No time to turn to the courts for help
4. During escape, no evidence that innocents or prison personnel was harmed
5. Upon reaching safety, they alert the authorities
What is the rule for defense of dwelling in California?
may be used when a felony creates great fear of bodily harm.
Burglary presumably meets this standard when:
1. An intruder forcibly enters/tries to enter home
2. Resident reasonable believes this to be true
3. Intruder is not a family or household member
What is the cheek exception and where does it apply?
D has a mistake of law defense when D sincerely (subjective) believes the law does not apply to them and the statute involves complex regulatory initiatives that contains "willfulness" (voluntary and intentional)
What are the different mens rea requirements for attempt in the MPC?
Complete attempt
- Result -> purpose or knowledge
- Conduct -> purpose
- Circumstances -> underlying offense
Incomplete attempt
- Result -> purpose
- Conduct -> purpose
- Circumstances -> knowledge
What is the natural and probable consequences doctrine? Where does it apply? What are its limitations?
The natural and probable consequences doctrine can be used to hold an accomplice liable for crimes which are committed by the perpetrator that were reasonably foreseeable. The mens rea is civil negligence and it applies to attempt crimes.
This applies to CA and common law.
CA does not allow this for first and second degree murder.