Chapter 7: Other Defenses

excuse v justification

different

excuse

focuses on the actor. The act was still wrongful, but the defendant is not held criminally blameworthy because of a problem with their capacity or ability to choose

justification

focuses on the act itself. Under the circumstances, the law considers the act not wrongful or legally permissible

examples of excuse v justification

• Duress → excuse because another person forced/threatened the defendant.

• Necessity → justification because the defendant broke the law to prevent a greater harm

to prove the guilt of a person charged w a crime, the state must present evidence

1. that a crime was committed corpus delicti

2. that the defendant committed or was a party to the crime charged

there is a requirement that

guilt of a crime change be established by proof BaRD

corpus delicti

govt must prove that the crime charged was committed (corp del.) and that the defendant was party to the crime (committed the crime or was an accomplice)

affirmative defense

a defense to a criminal charge in which the defendant generally admits doing the criminal act but claims an affirmative defense such as duress (they were forces) or entrapment

affirmative defense saying

yes i did it but i had a good reason

defense

provide either an excuse for the crim conduct or a justification for that conduct

leland v oregon

required defendant to prove the defense of insanity BaRD

states cannot shift the BoP for a

core element of a crime to the defendant by labeling it an affirmative defense

if a state defines a crime broadly, it can legally place the B

on the defendant to prove an affirmative defense

states cannot label a critical element that increases

crime severity as a affirmative defense to bypass their BoP

sources of Affirm Def.

• statues/federal: immunity, alibi

• common law : self defense, duress

• us consti: double jeopardy, speedy trial

immunity as a defense

a legal status where individuals who have committed crimes are exempt from prosecution, either temporality or permanently

immunity as a defense can stem from

fed or state status, international agreement or the us consti

immunity

an exemption from criminal prosecution based on us consti, status, or international agreements

vienna convention on diplomatic relations (1972)

diplomatic agents and their families enjoy full immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the host country

vienna convention on diplomatic relations (1972): what do they have to be doing

official consular work

vienna convention on diplomatic relations (1972): legal action

any legal action bought against a person/ w dip immunity must be dismissed

(US v Al-Hamdi) family immunity expiration

state dept rules conclusively set the age limit for a diplomat’s family member immunity at 21, or 23 if enrolled in school

(Van Ben Borre v state) waiver of immunity

a diplomat’s home country can wave immunity for serious crimes, allowing prosecution (e.g for murder)

(us v zhong) residual immunity

HOWEVER evidence from that immune period remains admissible to prove intent for illegal actions committed after losing diplomatic status

legislative immunity

gives fed and state lawmakers temporary protection from arrest during leg sessions and travel, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace

Article 1, S6 us consti

most states consti grant temp freedom from arrest during sessions and travel to/from them

there is no protection against arrest for

treason, felony, or breach of the peace but charges can be postponed until leg sessions adjourns

state leg have

no immunity from fed crim prosecution

article 1 s6 speech and debate clause

protects members of congress from being questioned or prosecuted for official “leg acts”, but this immunity is strictly limited

speech and debate clause bars

protection and exec/judic intrusions for actions forming an integral part of the leg process

speech and debate clause limitation

doesnt cover non leg behavior, criminal negotiations or corruption

no record surrender privilege

speech or debate clause does not allow members to withhold unprivileged records (like g mails emails) from fed corruption investigators

presidential immunity

while the consti dosnt’t explicitly grant immunity, the Supre C rules there is an implicit immunity for official acts taken during a presidency

witness immunity

power to subpoena: fed and state prosecutors _ leg bodies have the power to subpoena witness to testify for crim investigation

witness immunity 5th am conflict

witness can refuse to testify by involving 5th against self incrimination

immunity statues

laws passed by fed + state govt that grant witness immunity from prosecution, allowing courts to compel their testimony wo violating their consti right

prosecutorial control

under most states, courts can only grant witness immunity at the request of the prosecutor

judicial limits (states v gates)

restricts immunity requests to the state

fed immunity law

requires witnesses to testify b4 courts, agencies, or congress in exchange for protection against self incrimination

transactional immunity

total or full immunity for the crim offenses to which compelled testimony relates

transactional immunity cant be prosecuted for

any offenses related to subject matter of their testimony

use immunity

prohibits prosecutorial authorities from using compelled testimony in a crim prosecution but doesn’t make the witness total immune from prosecution based on evidence other than the witness testimony and not derived from that testimony

kastigar v us

statues gives the same protection as the 5th am —> all congres is required to give

two types of state immunity (prosecutors have a choice)

1. transactional immunity

2. use immunity

transactional immunity

the court may order testimony and grant full immunity from prosecution for the crimes

use immunity

the court shall order testimony, ensuring only the specific testimony cannot be used against the witness

contractual nature of immunity

immunity is agreement between prosecutor and a witness/ defendant

scope of contractual immunity

depends entirely on the agreement’s terms

mistake or ignorance of facts

defense when it negates a required mental state of the crime

mistake or ignorance of facts general rule

An honest mistake/ignorance of fact is a defense when it negates a required mental state of the crime

example of mistake or ignorance of facts general rule

A person accidentally takes someone else's identical coat.

• If they honestly believed it was theirs, they may lack the intent to deprive the owner required for theft.

mistake or ignorance of facts is not a defense if

the mistake doesn’t negate an elements of the crime

• ex taking property believing it belongs to A when it actually belongs to B → still intended to take someone else's property.

Morissette v. United States

• Defendant took spent bomb casings believing the government had abandoned them.

• Supreme Court said the jury should consider whether he had the required criminal intent/"evil-meaning mind."

mistakes being allowed:

• State v. Figueroa (2023): Belief that a moped was abandoned could be a defense if honest and reasonable.

• State v. Diaz (2022): Defendant believed victim was an alien; because the offense required specific intent to harm another person, the belief could negate that intent.

mistakes being rejected:

• State v. Torres (2023): Defendant claimed he believed a sleeping victim consented. Court found the evidence supported that he knew there was a high probability the victim was asleep.

• Green v. State (2023): Employee claimed she thought an accidentally oversized paycheck was a bonus. Jury could reject this because bonuses were not normally given and she immediately spent the money.

strict liability crimes mistake of fact is generally

NOT a defense bc the prosecution doesnt need to prove a mental state

strict liability - public welfare offesnes

• Strict liability crimes are also called public welfare offenses.

• They are generally used to regulate inherently dangerous activities or items.

• Goal is primarily preventing societal harm, rather than punishing moral wrongdoing.

• The prosecution only needs to prove the physical act, not mental fault

strict liability example

Bartender checks a very realistic fake ID, but still serves a minor → if the offense is strict liability, the honest mistake does not excuse the violation.

examples of strict liability

• Fleming v. State: Mistake about victim's age did not defend against statutory child sexual assault.

• United States v. Feola: Mistaken belief that victim was not a federal officer did not defeat liability.

• State v. Kleppe: Mistaken belief about why deer were eating cattle feed did not excuse violation of a strict-liability hunting law.

mistake of ignorance of the law

not a defense

• ignorantia legis nominem excusat: ignorance of the law excuses no one

mistake of fact (true crime)

For a true crime, a reasonable mistake of fact can negate the required mens rea.

mistake of fact (true crime) example

• You accidentally take an identical black coat from a restaurant thinking it is yours.

• You performed the physical act, but you lacked the mental fault required for theft.

true crime vs strict liability

• True crime → mistake of fact may negate mens rea.

• Strict liability → even an honest mistake does not matter.

mistake of ignorance of the law applies to

• murder

• rape

• robbery

• theft

• traffic laws are generally presumed known by licensed drivers.

mistake of ignorance of the law in cases of murder, rape. robbery, theft, traffic laws are

generally presumed to know by licensed drivers

mistake of ignorance of the law BUT

if law is very complex it could be excused like tax law

exceptions

Cheek v. United States (1991)

• Defendant failed to file tax returns because he honestly believed he was not legally required to.

• Because federal tax law is extremely complex, an honest misunderstanding of the law could prevent the required "willfulness" element.

Lambert v. California (1957)

• Defendant did not know about a Los Angeles registration requirement.

• Supreme Court held conviction violated due process because:

  • the duty was difficult to know about,

  • defendant had no notice,

  • and there was no evidence she probably knew about the requirement.

Rehaif v. United States (2019)

• "Knowingly" applied to both:

  1. possessing the firearm, and

  2. having the prohibited status.

• Government therefore had to prove defendant knew of the relevant status, not merely that he possessed the firearm.

voluntary intox defense

Usually not a defense because voluntarily becoming intoxicated is itself considered a reckless choice

voluntary intox defense exception

extreme voluntary intoxication can sometimes show that the defendant was incapable of forming the specific intent required for a crime.

voluntary intox defense: general intent crimes

• It generally does not mean complete acquittal, instead it may reduce liability to a lesser general intent offense

doesn’t usually provide a defense

voluntary intox defense: general intent crimes examples

• First-degree murder → potentially reduced to second-degree murder or manslaughter if the required specific intent cannot be established.

voluntary intox defense: specific intent crimes

specific intent may be negated if intox server enough to prevent purposeful/knowing conduct

• ex where it may matter: intentional murder, kidnapping, arson

voluntary intox defense: conviction

can still be convicted of a lesser general intent offense

involuntary intox may be a defense if

1. defendant did not voluntarily take the substance and

2. the intox made it impossible to form the required specific intent

involuntary intox ex

• someone secretly puts a drug in your drink.

• Can be a complete defense when the intoxication destroys the ability to form the required mens rea.

• The professor describes this as essentially temporarily eliminating free volition.

duress/coercion/compulsion

defendant admits committing the crime but argues they were force to do it bc of threats of death or serious bodily injury

duress/ duress excuse

1. Immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury

2. Well-grounded fear that the threat will actually be carried out

3. No reasonable opportunity to escape

• Threat must be directed at human safety

• Threats to property alone do not qualify.

duress/ duress excuse example

"Commit this crime or I'll burn your house down" → not duress.

coercion

1. Conscious purpose/intent to restrict another person's freedom of action

2. Threat/intimidation used to compel compliance

3. Compulsion, meaning the threat overrides the person's free choice.

coercion threats can involve

• Physical injury

• Threat of committing a crime

• Accusing someone of a crime

• Exposing a secret

• Publicizing something embarrassing/damaging

• Damaging property

• Withholding or taking official/public action

forcible compulsion

Physical force overcomes the person's resistance.

forcible compulsion can involve

an express or implied threat causing fear of immediate or future:

• Death

• Physical injury

• Kidnapping

duress/coercion/compulsion

• Coercion = threat/intimidation

• Forcible compulsion = physical force

• Duress = immediate serious threat + reasonable fear + no reasonable escape

duress/coercion/compulsion requirements

• threat of death/serious bodily injury

• defendant reasonably believed the threat exist

• threat must be presented and immediate

• (sometimes threat of violence in future isnt enough)

duress and murder

CL; no duress defense to muder or treason

duress and murder limited

some states allow it in limited circumstances

• may sometimes reduce murder to manslaughter

necessity/choice of evils requirements

1. defendant didnt cause the emergency

2. there was no immediate/imminent threat of serious harm

3. no reasonable legal alternative exits

4. harm avoided was greater than the harm cause by violating the law

diff states may define the defense diff

necessity

• choice-of-evils defense.

• Justification, NOT an excuse.

• Defendant breaks the law to prevent a greater disaster/harm.

• Emergency was not caused by the defendant's own recklessness.

• Defendant faces a choice between two evils.

• Harm caused by breaking the law is less than the harm avoided.

• Usually comes from a natural circumstance/act of God, rather than another person directly threatening the defendant.

duress v necessity

• Duress: "A person is forcing me to do this."
  Necessity: "The circumstances leave me with no reasonable choice."

necessity example

breaking into an empty cabin to avoid freezing during a sudden blizzard

necessity meaning in necessity/choice of evils requirements

defendant argues breaking the law was necessary to prevent a greater harm

necessity/choice of evils: fed law

whether a general necessity defense exists in fed crim law is something unclear

killing to save yourself

necessity generally doesnt justify intentionally killing another person

there is no legal right to

save yourself by intentionally killing an innocent person

self defense/defensive force

lethal force as a last resort, justified only when protecting against:

• Imminent death

• Serious bodily harm

• Certain enumerated forcible felonies

self defense/defensive force

1. Unprovoked attack

2. Imminent threat of unlawful harm

3. Proportional defensive force

4. Objective reasonable belief that the force is necessary

• subjective and objective prongs

alibi

defenses that defendant couldnt have committed the crime bc they were somewhere else when it occurred

many jurisdictions have

alibi notice statues

advance notice: notice status

defendant my have to disclose

• where defendant claims to have been

• names of alibi witnesses

If defense intentionally surprises the prosecution with an undisclosed alibi witness, the judge may

exclude the witness from testifying.