Criminal Law Chapters 5-8

justification defenses

defendants admit they were responsible for their acts but claim that, under the circumstances, what they did was right (justified)

excuse defenses

defendants admit what they did was wrong but claim that, under the circum-stances, they weren't responsible for what they did

affirmative defenses

defendants have to "start matters off by putting in some evidence in sup-port" of their justification or excuse defenses

perfect defenses

defenses in which defendants are acquitted if they're successful

competency hearings

special hearings to determine if defendants who have used the insanity excuse defense are still insane

imperfect defense

when a defendant fails in the full defense but is found guilty of a lesser offense

mitigating circumstances

circumstances that convince fact finders (judges or juries) that defendants don’t deserve the maximum penalty for the crime they’re convicted of 

initial aggressor

someone who provokes an attack can’t then use force to defend herself against the attack she provoked 

withdrawal exception

if initial aggressors completely withdraw from attacks they provoke, they can defend themselves against an attack by their initial victims

necessity

a defense that argues an imminent danger of attack was prevented

imminence requirement

an element of self defense requiring the danger to be “right now”

stand-your-ground rule

if you didn’t start a fight, you can stand your ground and kill to defend yourself without retreating from any place you have a right to be

retreat rule

you have to retreat from an attack if you reasonably believe (1) you’re in danger of death or serious bodily harm; (2) that backing off won’t unreasonably put you in danger of death or serious bodily injury

cohabitant exception

in the jurisdictions that follow the retreat rule, people who live in the same home don’t have to retreat

battered woman’s syndrome (BWS)

mental disorder that develops in victims of domestic violence as a result of serious, long-term abuse

curtilage

the area immediately surrounding your home

choices-of-evil defense

also referred to as the general defense of necessity. it justifies the choice to commit a lesser crime to avoid the harm of a greater crime

voluntary consent

consent was the product of free will, not of force, threat of force, promise, or trickery

knowing consent

the person consenting understands what she’s consenting to; she’s not too young or insane to understand

authorized consent

the person consenting has the authority to give consent

insanity

the legal term that refers to a mental disease or defect that impairs the reason and/or will to control actions

civil commitment 

a noncriminal (civil) proceeding in which courts have the power to decide if defendants who were insane when they committed their crimes are still insane

reason

the capacity to tell right from wrong

will

refers to the defendants’ power to control their actions

right-wrong test / McNaughten rule

the defendant suffered a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind, and consequently, at the time of the act didn’t know what she was doing or that the act was wrong

mental disease

most courts define it as a psychosis, mostly paranoia and schizophrenia 

mental defect

refers to mental retardation or brain damage severe enough to make it impossible to know what you’re doing, or if you know, you don’t know that it’s wrong

irresistible impulse test

we can’t blame or deter people who, because of mental disease or defect know, that what they’re doing is wrong but can’t bring their actions into line with their knowledge of right and wrong

substantial capacity test

a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

product-of-mental illness test / Durham rule

acts that are the products of mental disease or defect excuse criminal liability

diminished capacity

a failure-of-proof defense in which the defendant attempts to prove that the defendant, incapable of the requisite intent of the crime charged, is innocent of that crime but may well be guilty of a lesser on

diminished responsibility

an excuse defense in which in the defendant argues “what I did was wrong, but under the circumstances I’m less responsible"

waiver to adult criminal court

the juvenile court gives up its jurisdiction over the case and turns it over to the adult criminal court

judicial waiver

when juvenile court judges use their discretion to transfer a defendant to adult criminal court

involuntary intoxication

an excuse to criminal liability in all states; it includes cases in which defendants don’t know they’re taking intoxicants or know but are forced to take them

entrapment 

excuse that argues government agents got people to commit crimes they wouldn’t otherwise commit 

subjective test of entrapment

asks whether the intent to commit the crime originated with the defendant

objective test of entrapment

if the intent originates with the government and their actions would tempt an “ordinary-law-abiding” person to commit the crime, the courts should dismiss the case

syndrome

a group of symptoms or signs typical of a disease, disturbance, or condition

premenstrual syndrome

women using the excuse that PMS led to the defendant committing the criminal acts

post-traumatic stress disorder

excuse that argues the defendant wasn’t responsible because of PTSD

complicity

establishes when you can be criminally liable for someone else's conduct; applies criminal liability to accomplices and accessories

vicarious liability

establishes when a party can be criminally liable for someone else's conduct because of a relationship; transfers the criminal conduct of one party to another because of their relationship

agency theory

the idea that we're autonomous agents with the freedom to choose our actions and become accountable for someone else's actions when we voluntarily "join in and identify with those actions"

forfeited personal identity theory

the idea that when you choose to participate in crime, you forfeit your right to be treated as an individual; "your acts are my acts"

accomplices

participants before and during the commission of a crime

accessories

participants after crimes are committed

principals in the first degree

persons who actually commit the crime

principals in the second degree

persons present when the crimes are committed and who helped commit it (lookouts, getaway drivers)

accessories before the fact

persons not present when the crimes are committed but who help before the crime is committed (someone who provided a weapon used in a murder)

accessories after the fact

persons who help after the crime is committed (harboring a fugitive)

accomplice liability

liability that attaches for participation before and during a crime (prosecution for the crime itself)

accessory liability

liability that attaches for participation after crimes are committed (prosecution for a minor offense other than the crime itself)

conspiracy

an agreement to commit some other crime

Pinkerton rule

the crime of conspiracy and the crime of the conspirators agree to commit are separate offenses

accomplice actus reus

defendant took “some positive act in aid of the commission of the offense”

mere presence rule

a person’s presence at, and flight from, the scene of a crime aren’t enough to satisfy the actus reus requirement of accomplice liability 

respondeat superior

a doctrine in tort law that makes a master liable for the wrong of a servant; in modern terms, an employer may be liable for the wrong of an employee

parental responsibility statutes

based on parents acts and omissions; differ from vicarious liability statutes, which are based on the parent-child relationship

criminal attempts

trying but failing to commit crimes

criminal conspiracy

making an agreement to commit a crime

criminal solicitation

trying to get someone else to commit a crime

inchoate offenses

from the Latin term “to begin”; crimes that satisfy the mens rea of purpose or specific intent and the actus reus of taking some steps toward accomplishing the criminal purpose - but not enough steps to complete the intended crime