CL CH 9 Excuses

Excuses

defneses in which defendants admit wrongful conduct while claiming a lack of legal responsibility based on a lack of criminal intent or the involuntary nature of their acts

• “although I broke the law and my act was wrong, I am not responsible. I am not morally blameworthy”

• mental ability, youth, intoxication, mistake of fact, manipulated, entrapped

The insanity defense

a legal excuse based on mental disease or defect

• 13th century recognized that a murder of unsound mind was deserving of royal pardon… later madness was considered as a complete defense

Common law insanity defense

didnt initially consider a mental disturbance or insanity as relevant to a person’s guilt

Defendants who rely on this defense need to:

• provide notice to the prosecution

• subject to examination by a state appointed mental health expert (review the defendant and conduct various psychological tests)

Proceedures for using the insanity defense

prosecution and experts will testify at trial

• additional testimony is typically offered on behalf of the defendant by people who can attest to the defendants mental disturbance

• Nature of the criminal conduct is also important

Jury asked to return a verdict of guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI)

civil commitment

a procedure for detaining psychologically troubled individuals who pose a danger to society

Why do we have the insanity defense

Free will- the defendant didn’t intentionally break the law; their actions were due to a disability

Theories of punishment- people who can’t tell right from wrong or control their actions won’t be deterred by punishment. Punishment would be cruel.

Humanitarianism- if someone found NGRI is still dangerous, they should be treated by doctors in a medical setting, not punished in a criminal one

Tests for Insanity

M’Naghten

Irresistible impulse

Durham product test

American Law Institute (MPC)

Stats on who uses what insanity test

• 45 states, the fed gov, and D.C. retain some inquiry into moral capacity

• 7 states and the fed gov use some variant of the M’Naghten w its alternative cognitive (not understanding the nature of the act) and moral incapacity prongs

• 3 states provide for M’Naghten test along w irresistible impulse test

• 10 states base legal insanity on moral capacity alone

• 13 states and the D.C. adopted variants of the MPC test

• New Hampshire alone relies on metal disease or product test

Insanity is distinct from competence to stand trial which means

defendanrs are competent to stand trial if they can intelligently assist their attorney and follow and understand the trial

• the prosecution of a person who is found incompetent is suspended until the person is found competent

M’Naghten test/ right wrong test

at the time of committing the act, the party accusrd must have been suffereing from a defect of reason or from a disease of the mind as a result of which:

• the defendant “did not know what he was doing” or " did not know he was doing wrong”

• Followed by roughly half of American states

• the mental disease or defect requirement is satisfied by and physical damage, psychological disorder, or intellectual deficiency

Most common disorder under the test is PSYCHOSIS + nerurosis

• Sociopathic/personality disorders are NOT considered mental diseases because they KNOW between right and wrong

assumes that these individuals should be detained and receive treatment and that criminal punishment serves no purpose and is inhumane

Psychosis

pyschological disorder that results in an inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy

Criticisms of the M’Naghten/ right wrong test

must know “legal” or “moral” wrong

focusing on the mind and failing to consider emotions

Irresistible impulse test

evaluates whether a defendant was unable to control their actions due to mental illness, even if they knew the act was wrong

defendants may be found to be legally insane under this test, even though they are able to tell right from wrong

Individuals are NOT required to act in an explosive or impulsive manner under this test and may calculate, plan, and perfect their crime

assumes the defendant might know that their actions were wrong but examines whether they were unable to control their behavior because of a mental illness.

Parons v State (IIT)

the first use of the irresistible impulse test stemmed from this

• Alabama court ruled that this person had been driven to assist in the killing of her husband by the delusion that he had cast an evil spell that caused her to suffer from a prolonged and life-threatening illness

Central considerations of the Irresistible impulse test

whether the disease overcame a defendant’s capacity to resist the impulse to kill, rape, etc

• most courts don’t require that individuals lack total capacity to control their criminal impulses

Questions of the Parsons v State Case (IIT)

1. at the time of the crime was the defendant afflicted with a “disease of the mind”?

2. If so, did the defendant know right from wrong with respect to the act charged? If not the law excuses the defendant

3. if the defendant did have such knowledge, the law will still excuse the defendant if two considerations occur

   • if a mental disease caused the defendant to lose the power to choose between right and wrong and to avoid doing the alleged act that the disease destroyed the defendants free will

     AND

   • if the mental disease was the sole cause of the act

John Hinckley’s acquittal by reason of insanity for the attempted assignation of Ronald Regan (IIT)

sparked a reconsideration and rejection of this test

recognition that psychiatrists simply were unable to determine whether an individual experienced an irresistible impulse

• several jurisdictions abolished the Irresistible impulse test and adopted the John Hinckley Amendment that eliminated the defense in federal trials and adopted the strict M”naghten standard

Affirmative defense: (IIT)

defense to a prosecution under any federal statute, at the time of the commission of the acts as a result of severe mental diseases or defects, the defendant was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the acts

• however, mental illness isn’t a defense if it doesn’t fit this specific standard

Burden of Proof: (IIT)

the defendant has the burden of provide the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence

Durham Product test

a defendant’s unlawful act is the product of a mental disease or defect

• intended to simplify the determination of legal insanity by eliminating the confusing terminology

Was formulated in the NH SC in state v Pike in 1869 but was not accepted or even considered by any other jurisdiction until 1954 when it was adopted by the U.S Ct Apps for the D.C.

Abandoned in 1972 after realizing it had resulted in expert witnesses playing an overly important role at trial

Durham v United States

provided that an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of a mental defect or disease

• simplified the task of the jury, which required to determine only whether the defendant acted as a result of a mental defect or disease

DIDN’T have to determine whether right or wrong

DIDN’T have to prove irresistible impulse

Susbtantial Capacity test MPC

The ALI/ MPC adopted a modified version of the M’ Naghten and Irresistible impulse test

a person is not responsible for criminal conduct, if at the time of conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, the person lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the requirements of the law ( they were unable to conform their actions to the requirements of the law even if they understood it was wrong)

• abandoned by most states after Hinkleys attempted assignation in 1981

Appreciate: (SCT)

defendants may lack the ability to fully understand the harm or impact of their criminal actions, even if they know their act is wrong

Substantial capacity: (SCT)

test requires defendants to lack significant capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or to follow the law

• total impairment isnt necessicary

conform conduct to the requirements of the law: (SCT)

the standard avoids the term “impulse,” recognizing that crimes can be planned and not always spontaneous

Wrongfulness: (SCT)

defendants must fail to appreciate that their actions are morally condemned by the community, rather than just being legally prohibited

• mental disease or defect DOES NOT include sociopaths or an abnormality that causes repeated or antisocial conduct

Insanity defense today

trend is to follow the lead of the U.S. congresses and return to the M”Naghten

• revised statutes typically integrate aspects of the MPC substantial capacity test

Differences between the insanity tests

1. M'Naghten Test: Focuses on whether the defendant knew right from wrong at the time of the crime due to a mental illness.

2. Irresistible Impulse Test: Looks at whether the defendant was unable to control their actions because of a mental illness, even if they knew it was wrong.

3. Durham Product Test: Considers whether the crime was a direct result of a mental illness (a "product" of it).

4. MPC Substantial Capacity Test: Checks if the defendant lacked substantial capacity to understand the wrongfulness of their actions or to conform their behavior to the law due to a mental illness.

burden of proof in insanity cases

Defendant is presumed sane until some evidence is produced challenging this assumption

defendants burden varies from:

• reasonable doubt

• some evidence

• slight evidence

• scintilla of evidence (very small amount)

In roughly ½ of states, the prosecution possesses the burden of persuasion to establish sanity BRD

other jurisdictions, the defendant possesses the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence

In the federal system and a few states, the has the burden of establishing insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

• defendant must meet this burden in order for the issue of insanity to be presented to the jury

The future of the insanity defense

Critics: the insanity defense undermines the functioning of the CJ system

Bias: wealthy defendants can afford experts, giving them an advantage over poor defendants. some sane defendants may misuse the defense if they have the resources

Theories of punishment: the insanity defense challenges the CJ system by letting legally guilty individuals avoid punishment, undermining deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation

Moral blameworthiness: legally insane individuals are not seen as morally responsible, so they avoid imprisonment. HOWEVER, there’s often a thin line between being legally sane and insane, and only psychological disadvantages get special treatment, while other hardships are overlooked

Experts: insanity defenses often rely on expert testimony that’s technical and hard for jurors to understand which can lead to decisions based on impressions rather than clear reasoning

Argument: only a small number of deserving defendants are generally evaluated as legally insane

• less than 1% of 33 defendants per year

Guilty but mentally ill (GBMI)

the defendant is found to be guilty of a crime and mentally ill at the time of the offense.

• defendant is provided with psychiatric care while incarcerated

Distinguished from NGRI

4 verdicts jurors can choose from

GUILTY

NOT GUILTY

GUILTY BUT MENTALLY ILL (GBMI) (applies when the jury determines BRD that a defendant was mentally ill, but not legally sane at the time of the criminal act)

NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY (NGRI)

diminshed capacity

mental disease or defect admissible to demonstrate defendants inability to form a criminal intent; typically limited to murder

• recognized in roughly 15 states

• recognizes that individuals have the right to demonstrate that they are incapable of forming the intent required for the offense

• compromise between finding an individual NGRI or fully liable

wells gorshen rule

evidence of diminished mental capacity—caused by factors like intoxication, trauma, or disease—to demonstrate that a defendant lacked the specific mental state required for committing a particular crime.

• distinct from the insanity defense, as it focuses on the defendant's ability to form the necessary intent for the crime rather than their overall criminal responsibility.

MPC statements on diminished capacity:

evidence that a defendant suffers from a mental disease or defect is admissible

“whatever is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not have a state of mind that is an element of the offense”

under this approach, a defendant may introduce psychiatric evidence to negate the required intent in a prosecution for any criminal offense

Voluntary Intoxication

defendant is not held liable for an offense involving “knowledge or purpose

• increasingly not recognized as a defense (wasn’t recognized by the common law either)

William blackstone: urged that intoxication should be viewed as “an aggravation of the offense, rather than an excuse for any criminal behavior”

Courts rarely accept the involuntary intoxication defense, usually only in cases on intentional killing

Specific v general intent for Voluntary Intoxication

• Specific Intent: This refers to crimes where the perpetrator must have a particular purpose or objective in mind, such as premeditated murder. Evidence of voluntary intoxication can be used to argue that the defendant lacked the mental state required for the crime.

• General Intent: These are crimes where the intent is simply to perform the act itself, like assault. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense for general intent crimes.

Individuals who voluntarily intoxicate themselves are still held accountable for their actions, especially when they pose a danger to others.

_

Montana v Egelhoff

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can prevent defendants from using voluntary intoxication as a defense to argue they lacked the mental state required for a crime.

The Court decided this does not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. Essentially, being drunk can't excuse criminal behavior under Montana law.

Involuntary intoxication

a defense to criminal offenses where the defendant meets the standard for mental incapacity due to being intoxicated against their will

a defense to any and all criminal offenses in those instances when the defendants state of mind satisfies the standard for the insanity defense in that state

MPC sec 2.08 (4): invol intox

require that individuals lack substantial capacity to distinguish right from wrong or to conform their behavior to the law

also recognizes pathological intoxication which arises when a person voluntarily consumes a substance and experiences an extreme or unanticipated reaction

4 ways Involuntary intoxication can occur

duress: an individual is coerced into consuming an intoxicant

mistake: an individual mistakenly consumes a narcotic rather than a prescribed medicine

fraud: an individual consumes a narcotic as a result of fraudulent misrepresentation of the nature of the substance

medication: an individual has an extreme and unanticipated reaction to medicine prescribed by a doctor

Infancy at common law

did not recognize infancy as a defense to criminal prosecution

• said there was a presumption that children younger than 7 lack criminal intent

• in the case of children older than 7 and younger than 14 there was a presumption of a lack of capacity to form criminal intent

• individuals older than 14 were considered to possess the same capacity as adults

The common law presumptions of incapacity are not applicable to proceedings in juvenile court because the purpose of the court is treatment and rehabilitation rather than the adjudication of moral responsibility and punishment.

Infancy today

1. 25 states continue to follow the tripartite common law scheme while modifying the age categories

2. Others specify an age, typically 14, younger than which there is a conclusive presumption that a juvenile cannot form a criminal intent

3. another set of statutes recognizes that the jurisdiction of the Juvenile court is not exclusive and that juveniles charged with serious offense may be subject to criminal prosecution

4. group four of statues provide for exclusive jurisdiction by the juvenile court until a specified age (typically people between 16-18 charged with serious crimes may be transferred to adult court)

5. 5th group merely provides that the jurisdiction of the juvenile court doesn’t prevent the criminal prosecution of juveniles

in 2020, Vermont became the first state to expand juvenile jurisdiction to age 18

Facts of infancy to be considered

age of child

effort to conceal the crime

seriousness of the crime

Kent v U.S. (infancy)

16 y/o was arrested for serious crimes and the Juvenile court waived its jurisdiction w/o providing him a hear or access to his court records, allowing him to be tried as an adult

questions from the case whether to prosecute a juvenile as an adult:

• e the seriousness and violence of the offense

• the background and maturity of the juvenile

• the ability of the juvenile justice system to protect and rehabilitate the offender

Duress

a crime is excused when committed to avoid what is reasonable believed to be the imminent infliction of serious physical harm or death

explanations for the duress defense

realism: the law cannot expect people to act in a heroic fashion and resist threats of death or serious bodily harm

criminal intent: an individual who commits a crime in response to a severe threat lacks criminal intent

criminal act: individuals who commit crimes under duress act in an involuntary rather than voluntary action

The elements of Duress

the defendants’ actions are to be judges in accordance with a reasonable person standard

there must be a threat of death or serious bodily harm that causes an individual to commit a crime (psychological pressure and blackmail not included in duress)

does not excuse the intentional taking of another life

threat must be immediate and imminent

individual must have exhausted all reasonable and available alternatives to violating the law

must not create or assist in the circumstances leading to duress

Married women were exempt from liability under the common law (no longer the law

Duress and Correctional Institutions

the most controversial duress cases involve prison escapes, in which inmates threated with physical assault offer the defense of duress to excuse their escape

• must establish that they didn’t use force or violence toward prison personnel or other innocent individuals in the escape

• immediately contact authorities once have reached safety

State v Unger (duress)

escaped from prison after being threatened with death from other inmates

argued that he fled to avoid imminent harm and intended to return once he found safety

Critics of duress defense

• individuals should follow legal rules, even under conditions of stress and strain

• the law should encourage people to resist rather than conform to the demands of violent and forceful individuals

• falsely claim duress

Mistake of Law

an error of law, with isolated exceptions

NOT A DEFENSE

Ignorantia legis non excusat- ignorance of the law is no excuse

considerations:

knowledge: people are expected to know the law

Evidence: defendants may falsely claim that they were unaware of the law. This claim would be difficult for the prosecution to overcome

Public Policy: the enforcement of the law ensures social stability

Uniformity: individuals should not be permitted to define for themselves the legal rules that govern society

Critics: people cannot realistically be expected to comprehend the vast number of laws that characterize modern society

MPC Sec 2.04 (3) mistake of law

recognizes an “ignorance of the law” defense when the defendant doesn’t know the law and the law has not been published or made reasonably available to the public (notice)

defense also applies where a defendant has relied on an official statement of the law (reliance)

mistake of fact

defense based on mistake of fact that negates a specific criminal intent, knowledge or purpose

ex- Theft: If someone takes an item believing it belongs to them, this misunderstanding negates the intent to steal.

MPC Sec 2.04 (1) mistake of fact

states that “ignorance” or mistake is a defense when it negatives the existence of a state of mind that is essential to the commission of the crime

How to claim mistake of fact as a defense

1. defendant must show they lacked the intent to commit a crime

2. some courts require the mistake to be reasonable, meaning an average person might have made the same mistake

3. a mistake won’t work as a defense, if, even with the misunderstanding, the facts still amount to a crime

   • ex- thinking you received stolen food, but it was actually stolen drinks. it doesn’t matter, you still accepted stolen property

Commonwealth v Liebnow (MOF)

defendant was convicted of larceny for the theft of steel pipes

• claimed that he lacked intent to steal because he though they were abandoned

• the MA SC concluded that his belief was unreasonable because the materials were on private property with no trespassing signs and there was ongoing constuction on the site

People v Atherton (MOF)

IL App Ct held that a jury could reasonably conclude that a defendant arrested for residential burglary believed that he was helping a friend move

Director of Public Prosecutions v Morgan (MOF)

morgan told 3 men his wife consented to group sex but might resist for excitement.

• the assaulted her believing that she consented

British Law of MOF v MPC sec 2.04 (1)

overturned rape convictions, ruling that an unreasonable mistaken belief in consent negates criminal intent

• lead to a law requiring mistakes to be both honest and reasonable

  V

  a mistake of facts constitutes a defense, so long as it negatives the intent required under the statute

  • would acquit the defendants in the morgan case if the jury believed that the defendants did not “purposely, knowingly. or recklessly rape Mrs. morgan” (more flexible, no reasonableness required)

entrapment

legal defense claiming that a law enforcement agent induced a person to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise committed

It serves to protect individuals from coercive tactics used by law enforcement.

• not a constitutional right (in many states it is an affirmative defense that results in the burden being placed on the defendant to satisfy a preponderance of evidence standard)

  • other states require the defendant to produce some evidence and then they place the burden on the gov to rebut the defense BRD

subjective test for entrapment

focuses on the defendant's state of mind—whether they were already predisposed to commit the crime before law enforcement got involved.

• If they were not inclined to commit the crime but were induced by the government, they may have a valid entrapment defense (“but for” the actions of the government, would the accused have broken the law)

Steps

1. determine whether the gov induced the crime (assistance, favors, friendship)

2. evaluating whether the defendant possessed a predisposition or readiness to commit the crime (most important)

DECIDED BY THE JURY

Objective test for entrapment

looks at the government's conduct rather than the defendant's mindset.

• If law enforcement's actions would have led an ordinary law-abiding person to commit the crime, then entrapment may be established.

prohibited practices under the subjective test:

• taking advantage of weaknesses

• repeating appeals to friendship

• employing pressures or threats

• uttering false representation designed to induce a belief

Main question: would the inducements tempt and “ordinarily law abiding” person to commit a crime

• a defendant may rely on this test even if they are presidposed to commit this crime

DECIDED BY THE JUDGE

adopted by the MPC

Sorrells v United states (entrap)

entrapement was first recognized in this case in 1932

an undercover agent tricked defendant into locating some illicitly illegal alcohol

• SC reversed his conviction, defining entrapment as law enforcement inducing an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime through trickery or persuasion

good reasons for the government to rely on undercover strategies

crime detection: certain crimes are difficult to investigate and to prevent w/o informants (narcotics, prostitution, public corruption)

resources: undercover techniques can result in a number of arrests w/o expending substantial resources

deterrence: individuals will be deterred from criminal activity by the threat of government involvement in crime

criticisms of gov interaction in undercover work

governemnt may “manufacture crime” by individuals who otherwise may not engage in such activity

government may lose respect by engaging in law breaking

informants who infiltrate criminal orgs may be criminals whose own criminal activity is often overlooked in exchange for their assistance

innocent individuals are often approached in order to test their moral virtue by determining whether they will; engage in criminal activity

sherman v United States (entrap)

A landmark case in 1958 where the Supreme Court addressed entrapment, ruling that the government's actions led to the defendant committing a crime he was not predisposed to commit

(legal test for regulation)

United states v Russell

SC ruled against an entrapment defense.

• an undercover agent provided a key ingredient for making meth

• court found that defendant was already predisposed to commit the crime (Subjective)

per curiam decision

an opinion issued by the court as an “institution” as opposed to a decision issued by a single judge

abuse excuse

a criminal defense that claims a lack of criminal responsibility based on past abuse

(ex- battered wife/ battered child syndrome)

biological defense

a defense to criminal liability based on a claim that the defendants crime resulted from neurological, genetic, or physical conditions

• XYY Chromosome

• PMS

• Postpartum psychosis

• environmental defense

psychological defense

an excuse defense based on a defendants psychological condition

• brain washing

• ptsd

brain washing

a legal defense where individual claims to have been placed under the mental control of others and to have lost the capacity to make independent decisions

sociological defense

an excuse defense based on a defendant’s social or economic enviroment

cultural defense

a legal defense arguing that a defendant's actions were influenced by their cultural background or norms.

• were not aware of American law

Supporters: It’s unrealistic to expect that new immigrants will immediately know or accept American practices

Critics: lack of respect for American laws and can lead Americans to believe they are being treated unfairly if the immigrants are getting away w it

Deminimis Statutes

allows courts to dismiss minor or trivial offenses that have little or no real harm or impact

(ex- marriage customs, animal sacrifice)

have them in Maine and hawaii

State V Rameriz

charged with gross sexual assault due to inappropriate actions with her child

• even though she didn’t realize it was criminal (it wasn’t in her country)