Criminal Defenses: Self-Defense, Dueress, and Emergency
Subjective vs. Objective Tests in Self-Defense, Duress, and Emergency
- A fact-driven analysis of what works isn't always pleasing or relevant to one's narrative.
- Self-defense, duress, and sudden extraordinary emergency are legal defenses.
- Self-defense is awkward to apply due to a blend of subjective and objective tests.
Evidential Burden and Burden of Proof
- Defendants must present evidence showing a reasonable possibility of the existence of the defense.
- Once the evidential burden is met, the defense needs to be considered.
- The burden of proof remains with the prosecution to disprove the elements of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Structuring a Defense Analysis
- Present all possible arguments, addressing each element of the defense.
- Assess whether the prosecution can disprove an element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- If so, the defense fails; if not, the conduct might be excused.
- Break down events into discrete segments.
- Determine if a defense is available to one or all events, applying the defense accordingly.
- If a defense is only relevant to one event, apply it only there.
- None of these defenses matter if they are not relevant as the question asked.
- Defenses are relevant only if an offense was committed.
Self-Defense: Belief and Reasonableness
- The accused must believe the conduct was necessary for self-defense at the time of the act.
- This belief is a subjective test based on what the accused actually believed.
- Mistakes are acceptable; if the accused mistakenly thought an umbrella was a machete, it's still relevant.
- Intoxication or mental health conditions informing the belief are also relevant.
- The conduct must be a reasonable response in the circumstances as perceived by the accused.
- This is an objective test qualified by the accused's perception.
- Apply: Was it a reasonable response given the circumstances, as the accused perceived them?
- Consider differences in size, strength, and vulnerabilities, but stand back and look objectively
- Mistakes and delusions factor into whether the response was reasonable under those mistaken circumstances.
Examples and Applications of Self-Defense
- If someone suffering a delusion stabs a victim for supposedly stealing cigarettes, the question becomes: Was stabbing the victim a reasonable response to thinking someone was stealing cigarettes?
- Nevertheless, stabbing someone for stealing a cigarette is highly not reasonable.
- When assessing a reasonable response, consider societal expectations unless intoxication was self-induced.
- If intoxication led to a mistaken belief, consider how a sober person would respond with that same mistaken belief.
Self-Defense: Manifestation and Offenses
- Subjective understanding is irrelevant; what matters is objective manifestation.
- Self-defense can justify defending oneself or another person, preventing false imprisonment, or protecting property.
- For murder, the standard increases highly. Self-defense requires a belief that the conduct was necessary to defend against death or really serious injury.
Self-Defense: Murder vs. Manslaughter
- When dealing with murder, consider an alternative charge like manslaughter.
- Apply self-defense separately to murder and manslaughter due to specific legal subsections.
- Self-defense might negate elements of murder, but still be relevant to manslaughter.
- For unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter (UDA manslaughter), argue self-defense to the underlying offense (e.g., Section 18).
- If the Section 18 offense was in self-defense, it wasn't unlawful, negating UDA manslaughter because of section 3.
Limitations on Self-Defense
- Self-defense is unavailable if responding to lawful conduct and the accused knew it was lawful.
- This applies to law enforcement, paramedics, or everyday social contact.
Immediacy, Proportionality, and Intoxication
- Critical factors in self-defense:
- Immediacy of the perceived threat.
- Proportionality of the response.
- Intoxication, delusions, and distress are relevant to the subjective component.
- Intoxication is removed from the reasonable response analysis.
- Opportunity to escape is a relevant factor; each chance to escape makes self-defense harder to argue.
- Whether the accused initiated the violence is also relevant.
- The reasonable response test is guided by societal expectations and daily judgments.
Intoxication and the Reasonable Response Test
- If intoxication isn't self-induced, it's relevant to the reasonable response test.
- If self-induced, assess how a sober person would have responded in the circumstances.
- This creates a challenge, as intoxication exists on a spectrum.
Duress: Reasonable Belief and Response
Duress involves someone being threatened to commit a crime.
A person carries out conduct under duress if:
- The person reasonably believes a threat of harm has been made.
- Carrying out the conduct is the only reasonable way to avoid the threat.
The conduct is a reasonable response to the threat (objective standard).
Consider alternatives: fleeing, seeking police help before committing the burglary or robbery.
Reasonable Belief
- For reasonable belief, if the defendant is intoxicated, consider what a reasonable person would have believed, unless the intoxication was not self-induced.
- In murder cases, the threat must be death or really serious injury.
Sudden Extraordinary Emergency
- The person reasonably believes circumstances of an emergency exist.
- The conduct is the only reasonable way to deal with the emergency.
- The belief might be wrong; a building might not actually be on fire.
- Consider alternatives to the chosen conduct.
Cannibalism Example
- Starving sailors eat a crewmate to survive because they thought it was the only decision possible.
- Was that decision conduct a reasonable response to save themselves given the circumstances (eating Richard Parker)?
- The question becomes whether society condones cannibalism. What would a reasonably sober person believe and do?
Intoxication Recap
- Self-induced intoxication affects the assessment of whether the threat or reasonable standard was reasonable.
- If not self-induced, the intoxication must be shown to have affected the mindset.
Voluntariness and Mens Rea
- Consider whether actions were voluntary or willed, with awareness.
- Was the intention present? How did it cause the death?
- Intention to kill, intention to cause very serious bodily harm, or recklessness are considerations of the event.
- How did she foreshadow when she committed the act?
- Stay away from the language of reasonableness because what she actually thought.
- How to improve the mental act in those events?
- When there is doubt about death or really serious harm, it is easier to apply where there's the doubt about what injuries caused
Applying Defenses to a Case: Murder and Family Violence
Alan stabs Ron in response to earlier family violence
*You might argue this as the family violence that has influenced the member AR. It is all dependent on the explanation.Explain self-defense, including the subjective test.
*Focus on whether they believed it was required.Address the difference in applying self-defense for murder (protecting against death or serious injury) versus UDA manslaughter.
*Also, the family violence provisions to show that they would cause harm given factors as a group. Explain if it has affected the member, which will be needed.
Legislation and Evidence of Family Violence
Family violence legislation changes how self-defense and duress defenses are applied in those circumstances.
You can address the evidence as you are applying to the circumstances.
Family violence might show immediacy is not emphasized because of those family bars.
Section three, two, two M makes it clear that one's opinion may be relevant here. Not definitive.
You determine two two m
- Harm that is not immediate.
- The response involves the use of force in excess of the force involved in the harm of threatened harm.
Factors considered, but the context of use matters.
- Evidence of family violence
- The person carries out the conduct while believing it.
- If there is a reason for a response, those factors matter based on test conditions and how one relates to each.
Violence test.
It applies or is proportionate the elements themselves.
Family members include
- Family member
- Intimate relationship
- Stepchild
- Guardian
- Other: Member of the household
*Violence includes: - Harassment
- Damage to Property
Threats of Abuse
*The list violence should have extreme factors that is logical.
Violence also requires bringing out more and more violence.
*Show the violence has a psychology effect for both
Apply what has been learned:
* History
* Violence
* What definitions can one relate to it?