Exculpatory Defenses

What is a justification defense?

A defense asserting that the defendant committed the prohibited act but should not be punished because the conduct was justified under the circumstances.

What are the principal justification defenses?

Self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and defense of a dwelling.

What is the most common justification defense?

Self-defense.

When may a person use force in self-defense?

When the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect against the imminent use of unlawful force.

What does “imminent” mean in self-defense?

The threatened harm is about to occur immediately—right here, right now.

Is a threat to cause harm tomorrow sufficient for self-defense?

No. The threat is not imminent.

Why does the distinction between deadly and non-deadly force matter?

Deadly force is justified only against a threat of death or serious bodily harm, while non-deadly force may be used against a broader range of imminent unlawful force.

When may a person use deadly force in self-defense?

When the person is without fault, is confronted with unlawful force, and reasonably believes that they face imminent death or great bodily harm.

What are the three requirements for using deadly force in self-defense?

The defendant must be without fault, face unlawful force, and reasonably believe that they face imminent death or great bodily harm.

What does it mean for the defendant to be “without fault”?

The defendant did not provoke the confrontation and was not the initial aggressor.

Must the defendant’s belief in the need for deadly force be reasonable?

Yes. The defendant must reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary.

What kinds of harm may justify the use of deadly force?

Imminent death or serious bodily injury.

May a person use deadly force solely to prevent minor bodily harm?

No. Deadly force is disproportionate to a threat of minor harm.

May May use deadly force when an armed robber points a gun at her and threatens to kill her?

Yes. She is without fault, faces unlawful force, and reasonably fears imminent death or great bodily harm.

When may a person use non-deadly force in self-defense?

When the person is without fault and reasonably believes that non-deadly force is necessary to protect against the imminent use of unlawful force.

Must a person fear death to use non-deadly force?

No. A reasonable fear of imminent unlawful force is sufficient.

How much non-deadly force may a person use?

The amount of force the person reasonably believes is necessary for protection.

May May punch Shane when he threatens to beat her unless she gives him money?

Yes, if she reasonably believes that the punch is necessary to protect herself from his imminent unlawful force.

May May shoot Shane merely because he threatens to beat her without a weapon?

Generally, no. She may not respond to non-deadly force with deadly force unless she reasonably fears death or serious bodily harm.

May an initial aggressor generally claim self-defense?

No.

Why could Shane not claim self-defense after initiating the confrontation with May?

Because Shane was the initial aggressor and was therefore not without fault.

When may a person use force in defense of another?

When the person reasonably believes that the individual being assisted has a legal right to use force in self-defense.

Is a special relationship required to defend another person?

No. Under the majority rule, no special relationship is required.

What is required under the majority rule for defense of others?

A reasonable belief that the person being assisted has the legal right to use force in self-defense.

Can defense of others apply when the defender is mistaken about the situation?

Yes, if the defender’s mistake was reasonable.

What if a superhero reasonably but mistakenly believes that a man is stealing an elderly woman’s purse?

The superhero may still claim defense of others because the circumstances reasonably appeared to justify intervention.

What level of force may a person use in defense of others?

The level of force the defender reasonably believes the other person would be entitled to use in self-defense.

What type of force may generally be used to defend property?

Reasonable non-deadly force.

For what purposes may non-deadly force be used in defense of property?

To prevent property from being taken, damaged, or destroyed.

May deadly force be used solely to defend property?

No. Deadly force may never be used solely to protect property.

When may a person lawfully present in a dwelling use deadly force to prevent a violent entry?

When the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent an attack against themselves or another person inside.

May deadly force be used to prevent someone from entering a dwelling to commit a felony?

Yes, if the occupant reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry and intended felony.

Is deadly force permitted merely to protect the physical building?

No. It is justified by the danger to people inside or the threatened commission of a felony within the dwelling.

When is mistake of fact a defense?

When the mistake shows that the defendant lacked the state of mind required for the crime.

Is mistake of fact a defense to a strict-liability crime?

No.

What kind of mistake of fact is required for a general-intent crime?

A reasonable mistake.

What kind of mistake of fact is sufficient for a specific-intent crime?

A reasonable or unreasonable mistake, as long as it negates the required specific intent.

Why may mistake of fact be a defense to larceny?

Because larceny is a specific-intent crime requiring the intent to permanently deprive another person of their property.

Does Maya commit larceny if she accidentally takes her friend’s purse believing it is her own?

No. Her mistake means that she lacked the intent to permanently deprive her friend of the purse.

Must Maya’s mistake about the purse be reasonable?

No. Because larceny is a specific-intent crime, even an unreasonable mistake may negate the required intent.

What is the rule for mistake of fact based on the type of crime?

For specific intent, the mistake may be reasonable or unreasonable; for general intent, it must be reasonable; for strict liability, it is never a defense.

What is a mistake of law?

An honest belief that one’s conduct is legal when it is actually prohibited by law.

Is mistake of law generally a defense?

No.

What principle summarizes the general mistake-of-law rule?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Does a reasonable mistake of law ordinarily provide a defense?

No. Even a reasonable misunderstanding of the law is generally not a defense.

Can Dre avoid a speeding violation because he reasonably believed the speed limit was 70 mph rather than 50 mph?

No. His mistake concerned the law, and mistake of law is generally not a defense.

What is the principal difference between mistake of fact and mistake of law?

Mistake of fact may negate the required mens rea, but mistake of law generally does not provide a defense.

Which mistake defense depends on whether the crime requires specific intent, general intent, or strict liability?

Mistake of fact.

For which category of offense are mistake-of-fact defenses unavailable?

Strict-liability offenses.

What is the fastest way to analyze mistake of fact on the MBE?

Identify the required mens rea, determine whether the mistake negates it, and then ask whether the mistake must be reasonable.