Ch. 12—Defenses
Defenses to criminal liability come in two main flavors:
- Justification Defenses — the technical commission of a criminal act is viewed by society as justified and thus not appropriate for criminal punishment. The act was right, not just excused.
- Excuse Defenses — ∆ committed a wrongful act, but for reasons that exempt ∆ personally from blame (insanity, infancy, duress, intoxication-related cognitive failure).
| Justification | Excuse |
|---|---|
| The act is correct under the circumstances | The actor is not blameworthy |
| Self-defense, defense of others, defense of dwelling, necessity, choice of evils | Insanity, infancy, duress, mistake, involuntary intoxication |
| Society approves the conduct | Society does not approve the conduct, but does not punish this actor |
Subtopics
- Justifications
- Self-Defense
- Defense of Others
- Defense of Dwelling
- Necessity / Choice of Evils
- Excuses
- Insanity (M'Naughten and beyond)
- Infancy
- Duress
Cases
- Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921) — no duty to retreat; "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."
- State v. Marr, 765 A.2d 645 (2001) — perfect vs. imperfect self-defense.
- Bechtel v. State, 840 P.2d 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992) — battered-defendant self-defense.
- State v. Anderson, 972 P.2d 32 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998) — defense-of-dwelling "Make My Day" law.
- State v. Crawford, 521 A.2d 1193 (Md. 1987) — necessity / choice of evils.
- U.S. v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1984) — duress as excuse.
- M'Naughten's Case, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843) — insanity test.
- In re Devon T., 584 A.2d 1287 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1991) — infancy.
Reading: pp. 589–94, 598–601, 605–15, 618–24, 631–37 (Justifications); 641–47, 649–52, 696–704 (Excuses).