Mastering the Bar Exam: Criminal Law - Defenses to Criminal Liability (Episode Four)

1. Justifications: Self-Defense, Defense of Others, Defense of Property.

Justifications are defenses where the defendant admits to committing the act but claims it was justified under the circumstances. These defenses acknowledge that, while the act was technically criminal, it was necessary in the context.

Self-Defense.

Definition and Elements: Self-defense is the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. The key elements include a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of unlawful force and the use of a proportionate amount of force in response.

Reasonable Belief: The belief of threat must be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. This means that the defendant must actually believe in the necessity of self-defense, and this belief must be one that a reasonable person would hold under the same circumstances.

Proportionality: The force used in self-defense must be proportionate to the threat. Deadly force can only be used if the person reasonably believes that their life or that of another is in imminent danger.

Defense of Others.

Definition and Elements: This defense is similar to self-defense but is used to justify the use of force to protect another person. The defender must reasonably believe that the person they are defending is under an immediate threat of harm.

Limits to the Defense: The same principles of reasonable belief and proportionality apply. The defender cannot use more force than is necessary and reasonable to protect the other person.

Defense of Property.

Definition and Elements: This defense allows individuals to use reasonable force to protect their property from theft, destruction, or trespass.

Restrictions: Generally, the use of deadly force to protect property alone is not justified. The circumstances must indicate that the force was necessary to prevent a serious crime or protect human life.

2. Excuses: Insanity, Intoxication, Infancy, Duress, Mistake of Fact or Law.

Excuse defenses argue that the defendant should not be held fully responsible due to a personal condition or circumstance at the time of the crime.

Insanity.

Legal Insanity: This is a defense based on the idea that, at the time of the crime, the defendant was suffering from a severe mental illness and was unable to understand the nature of their actions or distinguish right from wrong.

Tests for Insanity: Different jurisdictions use different tests for insanity, including the M'Naghten Rule (focusing on the defendant's ability to understand the nature of the act), the Irresistible Impulse Test (inability to control actions), and the Model Penal Code's substantial capacity test.

Intoxication.

Voluntary Intoxication: Generally, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to most crimes. However, if a specific intent is an element of the crime, and the intoxication prevents the formation of such intent, it may be a valid defense.

Involuntary Intoxication: If the intoxication is involuntary, it can be a defense if it prevents the defendant from having the requisite mental state for the crime.

Infancy.

Definition and Application: This defense is based on the age of the defendant. Children under a certain age (usually 7 or 10) are presumed incapable of committing a crime as they cannot form the necessary mens rea.

Duress.

Definition and Elements: Duress is a defense where the defendant argues that they committed the crime because they were threatened with immediate harm to themselves or others. It must be shown that the threat was of such severity that a reasonable person would have succumbed to it.

Mistake of Fact or Law.

Mistake of Fact: This defense applies when the defendant makes an honest and reasonable mistake about a factual matter, leading them to believe their actions were not criminal.