LaFave on Criminal Law · Defenses Excuse
This chapter discusses various legal defenses that excuse criminal behavior, including mental incapacity, duress, and self-defense.
Source: LaFave on Criminal Law
This section examines the criteria for claiming mental incapacity as a defense, including the M'Naghten Rule, which states that a defendant must have been unable to understand the nature of the act or distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense. It also discusses how various jurisdictions apply different standards for cognitive and volitional incapacity, highlighting the importance of mental health evaluations in assessing a defendant's state of mind.
Duress serves as a defense when a defendant commits a crime under the threat of immediate harm or death. This section clarifies the requisites for a duress defense, emphasizing that the threat must be directed at the defendant or their immediate family, and it must be imminent and unavoidable. The section also addresses limitations, such as when the defendant has a reasonable opportunity to escape the threat without committing the crime.
This section discusses the principles governing self-defense, including the requirements of proportionality and the duty to retreat in some jurisdictions. It distinguishes between the use of deadly and non-deadly force, explaining when each is deemed justified. Important case law is cited to illustrate how courts evaluate reasonable belief in the necessity of force and how state laws can diverge on these standards.
The necessity defense allows a defendant to argue that their illegal act was justified to prevent greater harm. This section highlights the elements that must be proved for a successful necessity defense, including the immediacy of the threat and a lack of legal alternatives. Key cases are referenced that illustrate how different jurisdictions interpret the necessity defense, examining the balance between public policy and individual action under duress.
This section delineates the limited circumstances under which voluntary intoxication can serve as a defense, primarily affecting specific intent crimes. It distinguishes between general and specific intent and assesses how different jurisdictions treat the issue of intoxication. Important considerations include the nature of the intoxication and the defendant's ability to form intent at the time of the crime.
A standard used to determine whether a defendant is incapable of understanding the nature of their act or distinguishing right from wrong due to mental illness.
A defense asserting that a person committed a crime under immediate threat of unlawful force.
A justification defense allowing individuals to use reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm.
A defense claiming that a crime was committed to prevent a greater harm.
A defense that applies when a defendant asserts that intoxication negates specific intent required for a crime.
Defenses under excuse are frequently tested, particularly the distinctions between various forms of incapacity and the nuances of self-defense and duress. Students should be prepared to analyze fact patterns that require the application of these defenses and understand jurisdictional variations.