Defenses Negating Criminal Capacity

What are the three defenses that negate criminal capacity?

Insanity, intoxication, and infancy.

What is the effect of successfully establishing a defense that negates criminal capacity?

The defendant is entitled to an acquittal.

Why do insanity, intoxication, and infancy negate criminal capacity?

Because the defendant lacked the legal capacity to understand or control their actions at the time of the crime.

Who generally has the burden of raising and proving a defense that negates criminal capacity?

The defendant.

What is the usual standard for proving a defense that negates criminal capacity?

A preponderance of the evidence, although the applicable burden depends on the jurisdiction.

When does the insanity defense apply?

When the defendant was so mentally ill at the time of the crime that the defendant should not be held criminally responsible.

At what point in time must the defendant have been legally insane?

At the time the crime was committed.

What are the four principal tests for insanity?

The M’Naghten Rule, the Irresistible Impulse Test, the MPC/ALI Test, and the Durham Test.

What is the M’Naghten Rule?

A defendant is entitled to an acquittal if a disease of the mind caused a defect of reason that prevented the defendant from knowing the wrongfulness of their actions or understanding the nature and quality of their actions.

What are the two alternative ways to establish insanity under the M’Naghten Rule?

The defendant did not know the conduct was wrong, or the defendant did not understand the nature and quality of the conduct.

What does the M’Naghten Rule primarily test?

The defendant’s cognitive ability to understand their conduct and distinguish right from wrong.

Can a defendant establish insanity under M’Naghten merely by showing that the defendant had a mental illness?

No. The mental illness must have prevented the defendant from knowing the conduct was wrong or understanding its nature and quality.

Shane attacks Dom because his paranoia makes him believe that Dom has been stealing his customers. Can Shane establish insanity under M’Naghten?

Probably not, because Shane understood what he was doing and knew that attacking Dom was wrong.

Shane attacks Dom because he hallucinates that Dom is a giant snake. Could Shane establish insanity under M’Naghten?

Yes, because the hallucination may have prevented him from understanding the nature and quality of his actions.

What is the Irresistible Impulse Test?

A defendant is entitled to an acquittal if a mental illness made the defendant unable to control their actions or conform their conduct to the law.

Can a defendant know that an act is wrong and still qualify under the Irresistible Impulse Test?

Yes. The defense may apply if the defendant knew the act was wrong but was unable to control their conduct.

What ability does the Irresistible Impulse Test examine?

The defendant’s ability to control their actions.

Why is the Irresistible Impulse Test broader than the M’Naghten Rule?

Because it may excuse a defendant who understood that the conduct was wrong but was mentally incapable of resisting the impulse.

What is the MPC or ALI insanity test?

A defendant is entitled to an acquittal if, because of a mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.

What are the two alternative requirements under the MPC insanity test?

The defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the law.

Does the MPC test require a total inability to appreciate or control the defendant’s conduct?

No. It requires only a lack of substantial capacity.

Which insanity test represents the modern trend?

The MPC/ALI Test.

Which two insanity tests are combined in the MPC test?

The M’Naghten Rule and the Irresistible Impulse Test.

What aspect of the M’Naghten Rule is incorporated into the MPC test?

The defendant’s ability to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of the conduct.

What aspect of the Irresistible Impulse Test is incorporated into the MPC test?

The defendant’s ability to conform their conduct to the law.

What is the Durham Test?

A defendant is entitled to an acquittal if the criminal conduct was the product of a mental illness.

What are two other names for the Durham Test?

The Product Test and the New Hampshire Test.

What causal relationship is required under the Durham Test?

The crime would not have been committed but for the defendant’s mental illness.

Which insanity test is the broadest?

The Durham Test.

Must a defendant prove an inability to distinguish right from wrong under the Durham Test?

No. The defendant must establish only that the crime was the product of a mental illness.

Must a defendant prove an irresistible impulse under the Durham Test?

No.

Shane attacks Dom because of paranoia caused by a mental illness. What must Shane prove under the Durham Test?

He must prove that he would not have attacked Dom but for his mental illness.

Which insanity test asks whether the defendant understood the nature and wrongfulness of the conduct?

The M’Naghten Rule.

Which insanity test asks whether the defendant could control their actions?

The Irresistible Impulse Test.

Which insanity test asks whether the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or conform to the law?

The MPC/ALI Test.

Which insanity test asks whether the crime was the product of a mental illness?

The Durham Test.

What is the intoxication defense?

It is a claim that alcohol, drugs, medication, or another substance created an abnormal mental condition that affected the defendant’s criminal responsibility.

What are the two types of intoxication?

Voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication.

What substances may produce intoxication for purposes of the defense?

Any intoxicating substance, including alcohol, drugs, medication, or hallucinogenic substances.

Under what three circumstances is intoxication involuntary?

When the defendant takes an intoxicating substance without knowledge of its nature, under direct duress, or pursuant to medical advice without knowing its intoxicating effects.

Is a person involuntarily intoxicated when someone secretly puts a drug in their drink?

Yes, because the person consumed the substance without knowledge of its nature.

Is a person involuntarily intoxicated when forced to drink alcohol at gunpoint?

Yes, because the substance was consumed under direct duress.

When can medication cause involuntary intoxication?

When it is taken pursuant to medical advice and the defendant is unaware of its intoxicating effects.

To what types of crimes may involuntary intoxication apply?

It may be a defense to any crime if the applicable insanity standard is satisfied.

How do courts generally determine whether involuntary intoxication sufficiently impaired the defendant?

They apply the jurisdiction’s insanity test.

What is the MPC standard for involuntary intoxication?

The defendant must have lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or conform the conduct to the law.

Mae takes prescribed medication without knowing it may cause intoxication and hallucinations. Is her intoxication voluntary or involuntary?

Involuntary, because she took the medication pursuant to medical advice without knowing about its intoxicating effects.

Could Mae use involuntary intoxication as a defense to burglary and battery?

Yes, if the intoxication caused her to satisfy the jurisdiction’s insanity test.

When is intoxication voluntary?

When the defendant intentionally consumes a substance known to be intoxicating.

To what type of crime may voluntary intoxication be a defense?

Only to a specific-intent crime.

When may voluntary intoxication negate liability for a specific-intent crime?

When the intoxication prevented the defendant from forming the specific intent required for the crime.

Is voluntary intoxication a defense to a general-intent crime?

No.

Is voluntary intoxication a defense to a malice crime?

No.

Is voluntary intoxication a defense to a strict-liability crime?

No.

Is burglary a specific-intent or general-intent crime?

Burglary is a specific-intent crime.

Is battery a specific-intent or general-intent crime?

Battery is a general-intent crime.

Mae voluntarily becomes intoxicated after drinking four cocktails. Could she use voluntary intoxication as a defense to burglary?

Possibly, if the intoxication prevented her from forming the specific intent required for burglary.

Mae voluntarily becomes intoxicated after drinking four cocktails. Could she use voluntary intoxication as a defense to battery?

No, because battery is a general-intent crime.

Can voluntary intoxication be a defense to a general-intent crime if it caused the defendant to hallucinate?

No. Even severe voluntary intoxication does not excuse a general-intent crime.

Which intoxication defense is broader: voluntary or involuntary intoxication?

Involuntary intoxication.

What is the infancy defense?

It is a defense based on the defendant’s young age and presumed inability to understand the wrongfulness of their conduct.

At common law, can a child under seven be held criminally liable?

No.

What type of presumption applies to a child under seven at common law?

A conclusive presumption that the child lacks criminal capacity.

What rule applies to children between seven and fourteen at common law?

There is a rebuttable presumption that the child lacked the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of the conduct.

What does a rebuttable presumption mean in the context of infancy?

The prosecution may overcome the presumption by proving that the child understood that the conduct was wrong.

How are children age fourteen or older treated at common law?

They are treated like adults for purposes of criminal capacity.

How do modern statutes generally address infancy?

They establish a minimum age, commonly 13 or 14, before a child may be convicted of a crime.

Can a child who is too young to be criminally convicted still face legal proceedings?

Yes. The child may be adjudicated delinquent in juvenile or family court.

What is the primary objective of juvenile proceedings?

Rehabilitation rather than traditional criminal punishment.

A six-year-old takes and eats an apple from the teacher’s desk. Can the child be held criminally liable at common law?

No, because a child under seven lacks criminal capacity.

A twelve-year-old punches another child. What presumption applies at common law?

A rebuttable presumption that the child was unable to understand the wrongfulness of the conduct.

A sixteen-year-old intentionally sets the school gym on fire. Can the teenager be held criminally liable at common law?

Yes, because a person age fourteen or older is treated like an adult for purposes of criminal capacity.

Could the six-year-old, twelve-year-old, or sixteen-year-old potentially face juvenile proceedings?

Yes, depending on the jurisdiction’s juvenile laws.