CL CH 8 PDF

Chapter 8: Justifications in Contemporary Criminal Law

Introduction to Affirmative Defenses

  • Prosecutor’s Burden

  • Presumption of innocence

  • Case-in-chief

  • Rebuttal

  • Alibi

  • Affirmative Defenses

  • Burden of Production: The defendant must present evidence of their defense.

  • Burden of Persuasion: The defendant bears the responsibility of convincing the jury of their defense.

  • Types of defenses: Justifications vs Excuses

Justifications vs Excuses
  • Justification: Acts that are lawful because they serve a moral or legal interest, result in acquittals.
  • Excuse: Defendants acknowledge wrongdoing but present mitigating circumstances that may lessen the moral blame or punishment, e.g., requesting exemption from the death penalty.

Types of Justifications

  • Defense of Justification includes:

  • Moral interest

  • Superior interest

  • Public benefit

  • Moral forfeiture

  • Perfect vs Imperfect Defense:

  • Perfect Defense: Legally sufficient to avoid liability entirely.

  • Imperfect Defense: May reduce charges (e.g., manslaughter instead of murder).

Mitigating Circumstances
  • Good motive defense
  • Jury nullification

Self-Defense

  • Definition: The act of defending oneself is recognized as a justified response across all states.
Central Components of Self-Defense
  • Reasonable Belief:
  • The belief that force is necessary and reasonable must be subjectively and objectively assessed.
  • Necessity: Force must be used as a last resort.
  • Proportionality: The amount of force used must be proportional to the threat faced.
  • Retreat: Typically not required when using non-deadly force, but varies by jurisdiction.
  • Aggressor Doctrine: The initial aggressor cannot claim self-defense unless they withdraw and the other party continues the aggression.
  • Imperfect Self-Defense: In some jurisdictions, this may only lead to a manslaughter charge instead of murder.
The Law of Self-Defense: Reasonable Force

  • Justifiable Force:

  • A defendant must believe that imminent harm is present and act from necessity.

  • Ensuring actions are aimed at resolving disputes and as a last resort.

  • State v. Schroeder: Example case discussing justifiable force in self-defense contexts.

  • Excessive Force: Deadly force may only be used under strict conditions; excessive force is not permitted.

Retreat Requirements
  • The retreat principle emphasizes a duty to withdraw unless in imminent danger, with exceptions in some cases.
  • Stand Your Ground Laws: Laws allowing individuals to use force without the requirement to retreat.
  • Castle Doctrine: Protects individuals' rights to use force for defense within their own homes.

Defense of Others

  • Intervention Rights:
  • Historical limitations under common law and the alter ego rule, which allows one to act as a defender of another in imminent danger.
  • Example cases include People v. Young and State v. Fair that explore intervention rules.

Defense of Home

  • Common Law: Generally permits deadly force for home defense against harmful intruders, while statutes may limit this to scenarios involving felonious intent.
  • Make My Day Laws: Modern statutes that authorize the use of deadly force against certain threats.

Execution of Public Duties

  • Law Enforcement Justifications: Public interest permits trespass of individual liberties, such as using necessary force to apprehend felons.
  • Tennessee v. Garner: Established the legal standard for using deadly force in law enforcement.

Resisting Unlawful Arrests

  • John Bad Elk v. United States: Case illustrating the American rule on resisting unlawful arrests, contrasting with the English rule.

Necessity Defense

  • Concept: Often referred to as the “choice of evils,” allowing for actions taken to prevent larger harms.
  • Criticism of necessity defense revolves around self-help and potential law politicalization.
Central Elements of Necessity
  1. Immediate and imminent harm must be proven.
  2. The defendant should not be substantially at fault for the emergency situation.
  3. Act must cause less harm than the harm confronted.
  4. There needs to be a direct causal link between the act and harm averted.
  5. No legal alternatives available for complying with the law violated.
  • Legal Insight: Consent from an individual does not equate to a valid defense in criminal law; society's interest outweighs individual consent.
Exceptions in Consent Cases
  • Case Reference: State v. Brown highlights conditional exceptions where consent might apply such as incidental contact and certain social activities.
  • Free Consent Requirements: Consent must be provided freely, without fraud, deceit, or compromise of legal capacity.