Affirmative Defenses: Justifications Flashcards

Flashcards covering affirmative defenses, specifically justifications such as self-defense, necessity, and consent, as discussed in Chapter 5 of the lecture.

Actus reus

The first step in the criminal liability checklist, determining if a criminal act was actually performed.

Mens rea

The culpable mental state; if present along with actus reus, it constitutes criminal conduct.

Prima facie criminal liability

The state reached when criminal conduct (actus reus and mens rea) directly causes harm.

Justification

A defense where the defendant admits to the criminal act but claims it was right to do under the circumstances.

Excuse

A defense where the defendant admits to the criminal act but claims they were not fully responsible under the circumstances.

Perfect defense

A defense that results in no criminal liability; justifications typically fall into this category.

Imperfect defense

A defense where criminal liability is mitigated or downgraded; excuses usually fall into this category.

Preponderance of the evidence

A burden of persuasion standard meaning 'more likely than not.'

Clear and convincing evidence

The specific burden of persuasion standard required by Florida for affirmative defenses.

Martin v. Ohio (1987)

The case related to Ohio being the last state to place the burden of persuasion on the defendant for self-defense, later changed by House Bill 228.

Withdrawal rule

An exception where an initial aggressor can use self-defense if they withdraw from the attack and are then attacked by the original victim.

State v. Good (1917)

A case involving a father-son shootout that illustrates the withdrawal rule exception for an initial aggressor.

State v. Batie (2015)

An Ohio case where a wife was convicted of domestic violence because evidence showed she was the sole initial aggressor.

Imminent threat

A necessity element of self-defense requiring that the threat of harm be immediate, rather than a future threat.

U.S. v. Haynes (1998)

A case where the court ruled a prisoner's attack with scalding oil was not self-defense because the threat was not imminent.

Proportional response

The requirement that force used in self-defense must not be overly excessive; deadly force is only permitted against deadly force.

Subjective test

An evaluation of whether the defendant actually believed the force they used was necessary and proportional.

Objective standard

A standard used to determine what a 'reasonable person' would have done in the defendant's situation.

People v. Goetz (1986)

A New York case establishing that 'reasonably believes' in self-defense statutes implies an objective 'reasonable person' standard.

State v. Stewart (1988)

A Kansas case ruling that a reasonable belief in imminent harm cannot be based on battered woman's syndrome when the spouse is sleeping.

Duty to retreat

The common law requirement to avoid unnecessary death by escaping safely before using deadly force.

Castle doctrine

The principle that there is no duty to retreat when a person is attacked in their own home.

Stand Your Ground

Laws that remove the duty to retreat before using deadly force, allowing a person to meet deadly force with deadly force.

Florida v. Zimmerman (2013)

A high-profile trial where the defendant argued traditional self-defense rather than using a 'stand your ground' pretrial immunity hearing.

State v. Fish (2009)

An Arizona case where a man was convicted of murder after the jury believed he could have retreated, though the law changed to 'stand your ground' shortly after.

Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

A Supreme Court case ruling that law enforcement may only use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if they are escaping from a dangerous felony arrest.

Choice of evils

Another term for the necessity defense, where a crime is committed to prevent a greater harm.

Regina v. Dudley & Stephens (1884)

A landmark case establishing that necessity is never a defense to homicide.

Toops v. State (1994)

An Indiana case where the court allowed a necessity defense for a defendant who took control of a vehicle while intoxicated to prevent a crash.

Consent

A defense that is generally not valid unless it involves no serious injury, legal sports, conduct benefiting the person (surgery), or is an element of the offense.

State v. Shelley (1997)

A case involving a basketball game which ruled that consent is not a defense to a punch as it is not a foreseeable part of the sport.