chapter five
DESCRIPTION
Chapter Five. Defenses to Criminal Liability: Justifications. Joel Samaha. Learning Objectives. That defendants are not criminally liable if their actions were justified under the circumstances. That defendants are not criminally liable if they were not responsible for their actions. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Chapter FiveDefenses to Criminal
Liability:Justifications
Joel Samaha
Learning Objectives That defendants are not criminally
liable if their actions were justified under the circumstances.
That defendants are not criminally liable if they were not responsible for their actions.
Understand how the affirmative defenses operate in justified and excused conduct.
Appreciate that self-defense limits the use of deadly force to those who reasonably believe they are faced with the choice to kill or be killed right now.
To know and understand the differences, of the four elements of self-defense.
Understand the retreat rule and appreciate its historic transformation.
Appreciate the historic transformation of retreat and its shaping of the stand-your-ground rule and the retreat rule.
Understand that there is no duty to retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force.
Appreciate that the new “Castle Doctrine” laws are transforming the law of self-defense.
To know that the choice-of-evils defense, choosing to commit a lesser crime to avoid an imminent threat of harm from a greater crime is justified.
That the defense of consent represents the high value placed on individual autonomy in a free society.
Defenses to Criminal Liability Behavior that is justifiable or excusable
does not lead to criminal liability Justifications and excuse comprise
many of the defenses to criminal liability
Justification defenses- defendants admit responsibility but claim that what they did was right under the circumstances
Excuse defenses-defendants admit that what they did was wrong, but claim they are not responsible
Proving Defenses in Court Affirmative defenses require the
defendant to raise the issue and put on some evidence supporting his or her claim (burden of production)
Failure-of-proof defenses require the defendant only has to raise a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s proof of just one element in the crime
Perfect and Imperfect DefensesPERFECT DEFENSES IMPERFECT DEFENSES
• Allow defendant to escape all criminal liability if they are successfully raised (“they let the defendant walk”)
• Most defenses are perfect defenses
• Insanity defense is not a perfect defense because even if defendant succeeds, there will generally be some commitment
• Either the defense is an imperfect defense and if defense is successfully raised, the defendant will not “walk” Diminished capacity (see
Chapter 6)• OR a perfect defense which is
not completely fulfilled Example: Swann v. United States
Jury could consider evidence that Swann honestly but unreasonably believed he needed to use deadly force in self-defense and convict on manslaughter rather than murder
Mitigating Circumstances Circumstances that convince fact
finders (judges and juries) that defendants don’t deserve the maximum penalty for the crime they’re convicted of
Discussion ActivityReview the list of possible mitigating circumstances and discuss a possible scenario for each that may justify sentence an offender to a lesser penalty: The victim was an aggressor in the incident. The offender played a minor or passive role in the
crime or participated under circumstances of coercion or duress.
The offender, because of physical or mental impairment, lacked substantial capacity for judgment when the offense was committed. The voluntary use of intoxicants (drugs or alcohol) is not a mitigating circumstance
Other substantial grounds exist which tend to excuse or mitigate the offender's culpability, although not amounting to a defense.
Self-Defense Defense allows self-help due to
necessity Not retaliation Not preemptive strikes Only good before the law when:
• The necessity is great• It exists “right now”• It’s for prevention only
Self-Defense Elements Unprovoked Attack
• Defender cannot be the initial aggressor, cannot have provoked the attack
Necessity• Only use force necessary to repel an imminent attack
(one that is going to happen right now) Proportionality
• Defender can only use the amount of force necessary to repel the unlawful force
• Deadly force can only be used to repel deadly attack Reasonable Belief
• Defender has to reasonably believe (objectively reasonable) that it is necessary to use force to repel the attack
Case: U.S. v Haynes
Facts: Hayes, the defendant, was convicted of burglarizing a general store. The defendant’s accomplice in the burglary, a relative of the store owners, only participated so that the Defendant could be caught in the act and had no actual intent to rob the store.
Issue: Are the actions of the defendant’s accomplice in entering the building imputable to the Defendant himself under the theory of accomplice liability?
Holding: No. The defendant and his accomplice did not have the same intent in entering the building and were therefore not accomplices for purposes of accomplice liability.
Case: People v. Goetz
Facts: Goetz , defendant, shot and wounded four youths he believed to be trying to “play with” him. Goetz claimed that he was certain that the youths did not have guns, but he was afraid, based on prior experiences, of being “maimed.”
Issue: Is the reasonable belief that a person is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury requirement for self-defense a wholly subjective test that focuses solely on the Defendant’s state of mind?
Holding: No. Allowing a person to justify his conduct by self-defense simply because he personally believes that his actions are justified cannot be a result the legislature intended.
Self-Defense: Retreat Rule Retreat doctrine
requires that a person retreat (if they can do so safely) before using force
English common law principle which survived in some American jurisdictions
Most jurisdictions did not require retreating, but allowed a person to “stand one’s ground” and kill in self-defense
Retreat Rule states you have to retreat from attack if you reasonably believe that you’re in danger of danger of death or serious bodily harm and backing off won’t unreasonably put you in danger of death or serious bodily harm
Castle exception (to the retreat rule) provides that when you are attacked in your own home you can stand your ground and use deadly force to fend off unprovoked use of deadly force against you only if you believe the attack threatens death or serious bodily harm
Domestic Violence In those states that have the retreat rule
and the castle exception to the retreat rule, an issue arises when the attacker and the defender are cohabitants sharing the same “castle.”
People v. Tomlins (1914): case involved a man killing his 22-year-old son in their cottage. The court held that the general rule that a person need not retreat in his or her own home applies whether the attacker is a cohabitant or an outsider.
Case: State v. Stewart
Facts: Stewart, the defendant, was a battered wife who endured many years of brutal abuse at the hands of her husband. Evidence at the trial indicated that she suffered from “battered-wife” syndrome. Stewart hid a loaded gun under the mattress of a spare bedroom. After another abusive incident, Stewart went to bed with her husband and decided to shoot him in his sleep.
Issue: Did Stewart belief that imminent danger was reasonable therefor actin in self defense
Holding: No. For self-defense to be applicable, the person must reasonably believe the threat is imminent. Stewart had time to extract herself from the danger, thus her fear of imminent danger was not objectively reasonable.
Defense of Others Historically limited to members of immediate
family Trend is in opposite direction Many states allow defense of anyone who needs
immediate protection from attack Others have to have the right to defend
themselves before someone else can claim the defense• Ex: State v. Aguillard—abortion rights protestors
could not claim defense of others, because the “others” could not legally defend themselves
Defense of Home and Property Historically defense was
limited to nighttime invasions Modern statutes limit use of
deadly force to cases where it is reasonable to believe intruders intend to commit crimes of violence against occupants
Defense generally didn’t cover the curtilage of the home (area immediately surrounding home)
Many statutes required entry into occupied home (no spring guns, dangerous dogs)
Can use force, but not deadly force, to protect property and prevent it from being taken from you
Defense based on necessity Can run after and take back
what someone has just taken from you
Defense of Property:
New Castle Laws Laws of defense of habitation and property are
undergoing transformation More than 40 states have proposed new
legislation expanding law of “self-defense” Florida Personal Protection Law
• Sets out standard conditions of self defense, defense of others, then creates a presumption or reasonable fear of great bodily harm when others enter dwelling, car
• Also allows other to stand their ground in any place (not limited to dwelling) and meet force with force, including deadly force
• Also creates a presumption that anyone forcefully entering a dwelling intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence
• Creates immunity from civil action and criminal prosecution for using deadly force under the statute
New Castle Laws Supporters
• Public reasserting fundamental rights (to protect homes and self)
Gun Control Advocates• Creates violence by citizens, citizens have
more right to use deadly force than the police
• License to kill• Sends wrong message to people
New Castle Laws (cont.) Law Enforcement Concerns:
• Unintended negative consequences for public safety created by new castle laws
Officers use of force Operations and training requirements Increased investigation burdens Law enforcement attitudes and their impact on officer performance Doubt that these laws deter crime
Officer’s use of force• Imbalance between civilians right to use deadly force and
officers rights creates dangerous situations• No knock search implications• Presumption of reasonable danger provisions means civilians
can shoot officers entering to serve warrant
New Castle Laws (cont.) Operations and Training Requirements
• Difficult for officers to determine whether the new law is properly invoked due to newness of law and lack of cases interpreting law
• Need continued training where and when castle expansion might apply
Increased Investigative Burdens• Prior to law: investigate dangerous force imminent, duty
to retreat• Now: investigate self-defense claims in many more cases
Proving the negative (that the owner did not under a potential claim of castle doctrine)….rather than disproving a claim of self-defense (because of the presumption in the law)
New Castle Laws (cont.)
Effect of Law Enforcement Attitudes on Performance• Practical concerns: officers sentiment that
dead victims got what they deserved leads to failure to carry out more intensive investigation
• Expanded area of no retreat law means that there will be more defendants invoking castle exception Burden on officers time Apathy resulting
New Castle Laws (cont.) Doubts that these laws deter crimes
• Deterrent effect depends on whether the expansion of citizen’s rights to use deadly force is widely publicized
• Deterrent effect depends on whether would-be criminals appreciate that citizens are armed and might kill or injure them
People might feel safer because they have right to defend themselves, or they may feel less safe because they don’t know who might be carrying weapons
May lead to more people carrying and using weapons
Cases:Jennifer Galas, FloridaRobert Lee Smiley, FloridaSarbrinder Pannu, MississippiGas clerk-Mississippi
Discussion Activity Review the article below regarding the “castle doctrine”http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/141497673.htmlWas the Governor’s choice to veto the “castle doctrine” bill was the right decision?What dangers/disadvantages could come about if the bill had not been vetoed. What advantages could come about if the bill had been implemented?
Choice of Evils Ancient defense Stems from doctrine
of necessity Criticized as vague,
and wide open to interpretation
Examples• Escape from prison to
avoid fire• Destroy home to stop
fire from spreading
Choose to commit a lesser crime to avoid the harm of a greater crime (AKA: general defenses of necessity)
Three part analysis of MPC• Identify evils• Rank evils• Reasonably believe that the
greater evil is imminent MPC indicates that right
choices are life, safety, and health over property
Defer to legislatures when they have already ranked evils
Case: Toops v. State
Facts: Toops, the defendant, was drinking beer with friends at Toop's house. They decided to drive into town. Toops' friend offered to drive due to Toops’ perceived intoxication. While driving, they spotted a police car. The driver panicked as he was a minor who had been consuming alcohol. The driver jumped from the driver’s seat into the back seat, allowing the car to become out of control. Toops jumped into the driver’s seat in an effort to keep the car from getting further out of control. Toops was arrested for DUI
Issue: Is Toops’ voluntary control of the car while intoxicated covered by the defense of necessity?
Holding: Yes. “Choice of evils” defense
Consent Arises from value placed on individual autonomy Criminal law “hostile” to the defense of consent Some behavior requires lack of consent as an
element of the crime (e.g., rape) Some individuals are unable, because of statute,
to give consent• Minors, legally incompetent individuals, intoxicated
individuals for example Situations where consent is recognized defense
• No serious injury results from the consensual crime• The injury happens during a sporting event• The conduct benefits the consenting person• The consent is to sexual conduct
Consent To be valid the defense of consent must be
• Voluntary Consent given was the product of free will, not of force, threat of
force, promise or trickery Forgiveness after the fact doesn’t turn involuntary consent into
voluntary consent• Knowing
The person consenting must understand what he or she is consenting too
Person can’t been too young, under the influence, or insane to understand
• Authorized Consent must also be authorized A person cannot give consent for someone for whom they are
not legally responsible
Case: State v. Shelley
Facts: Shelley, the defendant, and Gonzalez were on opposing teams in a pick up basketball game. Gonzalez fouled Shelley several times and while trying to hit the ball, scratched Shelley’s face, drawing blood. Later in the game, Gonzalez made a move toward Shelley. Shelley swung and hit Gonzalez, breaking his jaw.
Issue: Did the behavior of Shelley exceed the behavior foreseeable in the game?
Holding: Yes. Shelley’s behavior was beyond the limit
Case: State v. Hiott
Facts: Hiott, the defendant, shot his friend in the eye while playing a game of shooting each other with BB guns. Hiott was charged with 3rd degree assault
Issue: Is consent a defense? Holding: No. Consent is not a defense if
activity consented to is against public policy
Case: State v. Brown
Facts: Brown, the defendant, beat his wife because she had been drinking. The couple had an agreement Brown would punish his wife by physical assault if she consumed alcohol
Issue: Is consent a defense? Holding: No. No one has the right to beat
another even if the person may ask for it.
Discussion ActivityAs you watch this brief video, reflect on the information presented in this chapter. Then discuss if self-defense or consent could or could not be applied in this event.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/video/justin-bieber-investigated-for-laser-tag-assault-11905500