Crim Self Defense

Answers from class

Defendant resides in a state that has adopted the Model Penal Code. He has been charged with murder based on the following facts: while celebrating after his college football team won a big game, he went to an area bar. Seeing the victim, who was wearing a sweatshirt from the college defeated in that day’s game, Defendant taunted and pushed the victim, despite the fact victim was much larger than was Defendant. Enraged, the victim punched Defendant, knocking him to the ground. The victim jumped on Defendant and was knocking his head into the ground. Fearful, Defendant pulled out a handgun, which he was licensed to carry, and shot the victim, killing him instantly. Defendant’s attorney, for whom you work, has asked you whether Defendant may be able to prevail by raising a claim of self-defense. Which of the following answers best answers her question?

A. Even if Defendant was the initial aggressor, he was justified in using
deadly force once he was faced with deadly force. Nonetheless, he
may be guilty of a battery.
B. Because he was the initial aggressor, Defendant lost his right of self
-defense.
C. Defendant does not have a claim of self-defense because he was
not faced with deadly force and, therefore, could not retaliate with
deadly force.
D. Whether Defendant can raise a self-defense claim depends on
whether he is in a retreat jurisdiction.

A

Defendant resides in a state that has adopted the Model Penal Code. He has been charged with murder based on the following facts: Defendant had been threatened by the victim in the past. The victim had a reputation of being a thug and he often menaced smaller men for little or no reason. On the day in question, Defendant saw the victim coming towards him. He tried to get away but found himself trapped in an alley. The victim approached Defendant. When he was several feet away, the victim patted his breast pocket. At that point, Defendant pulled out a handgun that he was licensed to carry and shot the victim to death. As it turns out, the victim was not armed and was attempting to make amends for his bullying behavior. Defendant’s attorney, for whom you work, has asked you whether Defendant may be able to prevail by raising a claim of self-defense. Which of the following answers best answers her question?

A. Defendant can succeed only if the jury finds his mistake about the need to use deadly force reasonable.
B. Because self-defense is a justification, Defendant can invoke it only when killing force was actually necessary. Here, it was not necessary.
C. Section 3.04 of the Model Penal Code does not require that a defendant’s mistake as to the need to use killing force be reasonable. As a result, Defendant should be acquitted even if the jury finds his mistake unreasonable.
D. If the jury finds that Defendant was mistaken as to the need to use self-defense, it should acquit him of intentional murder. Depending on whether the jury found his mistake reckless or negligent, it may find him guilty of a lesser included offense to intentional murder.

D

Defendant resides in a state that has not adopted the Model Penal Code. He has been charged with murder based on the following facts: Defendant was sitting by himself in a park where he was talking to a friend on his cell phone. A passerby became enraged that Defendant was speaking loudly to his friend and rushed towards Defendant with a crowbar. Just before his attacker could land a blow, Defendant pulled out a properly licensed handgun and shot his attacker. Defendant deliberately shot him in the thigh with the hope that would stop the attack. It did. But the bullet severed an artery. While the attacker lay on the ground bleeding profusely, Defendant resumed his phone conversation without attempting to get aid for his attacker. His attacker died not long after from blood loss. The prosecutor intends to charge Defendant with murder and is concerned whether the charge will stick. Which of the following gives the prosecutor the best advice about this case?

A. Defendant had a duty to retreat and therefore was not entitled to use self-defense in the first instance. You should be able to secure a conviction for murder.
B. Defendant had a duty to retreat and therefore was not entitled to use self-defense in the first instance. But Defendant lacked the mens rea for murder. At most, the state can hope to secure a conviction for negligent homicide. You should charge Defendant with the lesser crime as a result.
C. Defendant was justified in his initial conduct, but may have had a duty to act once his actions put his attacker in a position of danger. As a result, you may be able to secure a conviction for murder.
D. Defendant was justified in his initial conduct, but may have had a duty to act once his actions put his attacker in a position of danger. But in cases involving omission liability, the law allows a conviction for involuntary manslaughter, not negligence.

C

Defendant resides in a state that has not adopted the Model Penal Code. She has been charged with the murder of her husband. After years of abuse, she finally cracked when he threatened to kill her if she did not eat her supper out of a dog's dish. At trial, defense counsel has called Dr. Expert to testify concerning the battered spouse syndrome. The prosecutor has objected to the testimony. Defense counsel has made a proffer indicating that Dr. Expert will testify on two issues: (1) she will support Defendant's credibility (i.e., to explain how a woman would stay with her husband for so long if, as the evidence will show, Defendant suffered years of abuse); and (2) she will explain how, from Defendant's point of view, her belief in the need to defend herself was reasonable.
Which of the following best describes how the court should rule on the prosecutor's objection consistent with prevailing law?

A. The court should overrule the objections to Dr. Expert's testimony about the reasonableness of Defendant's beliefs, but sustain it as to Dr. Expert's testimony as it relates to Defendant's credibility.
B. Dr. Expert's testimony is admissible only if Defendant is raising an insanity defense. As a result, the court should sustain the objection unless Defendant has interposed an insanity defense.
C. The court should overrule the objections and allow testimony on both issues. Courts recognize the relevance of such expert testimony is credible. Further, as to the second issue, Dr. Expert's testimony is consistent with the prevailing case law dealing with the battered spouse's syndrome.
D. The court should overrule the objection as to Dr. Expert testimony on Defendant's credibility but sustain the objection as to her testimony on Defendant's view of what was reasonably necessary to protect her life.

?

Defendant lives in a state that has not adopted the Model Penal Code. Defendant has been arrested for murder based on the following facts: Defendant awoke and heard someone in his house. He armed himself and went downstairs and shot the intruder to death. The victim turned out to be a neighbor who mistakenly entered the wrong house. The prosecutor is considering whether these facts are sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder or whether the intruder’s conduct provides Defendant with a defense. Which of the following answers best describes the prevailing law?

A. The answer would be clearer had Defendant shot the intruder when he was trying to enter Defendant’s home. Then Defendant’s defense would be stronger than on these facts.
B. The prosecutor should dismiss the charges. Defendant was fully justified in shooting the intruder.
C. Case law is settled: unless Defendant had some other defense than defense of habitation, he was not entitled to use deadly force.
D. If Defendant had a means of escape, he was not entitled to use deadly force.

?