Transcript Criminal Law - Keith Wilmot

Criminal Law
Chapter 5
Defenses to Criminal Liability:
Justifications
Joel Samaha, 9th Ed.
Justification and Excuse Defenses
A justification and excuse defense
are types of an ‘affirmative defense’
in which the burden of proof is on the defendant –
“the burden of production.”
Justification versus Excuse Defenses

Justification defense: defendants admit they were
responsible for their acts but claim what they did
was right (justified) under the circumstances, e.g.,
self-defense.

Excuse defense: defendants admit what the did
was wrong but claim that, under the
circumstances, they were not responsible for what
they did, e.g., insanity.
Justification Defenses

Self-defense

The defense of others

The defense of home and property

The choice-of-evils defense

Consent
Questions
Explain the concept of necessity
as it relates to self-defense.
What are the three circumstances
that must come together
to validate necessity
as it relates to self-defense?
Elements of Self-Defense

Unprovoked attack

Imminent danger

Necessity

Reasonable force
Questions
What is the difference between
imminent danger and present danger?
What is the difference between
the stand-your-ground rule
and the retreat rule?
Discussion
Explain the facts and opinion of the following cases:
People v. Goetz
497 N.E.2d 41 (N.Y. 1986)
State v. Stewart
763 P.2d 572 (Kans. 1988)
U.S. v. Peterson
483 F.2d 1222 (2nd Cir. 1973)
Defense of Others
Some states require a special relationship;
however, many states have expanded this requirement
to include the defense of anyone who needs
immediate protection from attack.
“The ‘defense of others’ specifically limits the use of force
or violence in protection of others to situations
where the person attacked would have been
justified in using such force or violence to protect himself.”
State v. Agullard (1990, 674)
In Defense of Home and Property

The right to use force to defend your home is deeply rooted
in the common-law idea that “a man’s home is his castle.”
(This does not include the curtilage).

The use of deadly force depends on the state, i.e.,
Colorado’s “make my day” law.

People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987)

Falco v. State, 407 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1981)
Necessity (Choice of Evils)

Also known as the general principle of necessity.

Proving the defendant made the right choice, the
only choice-namely, the necessity of choosing now
to do a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil.
Model Penal Code
Elements of Choice-of-Evils

Identify the evils

Rank the evils

Choose the lesser evil to avoid the greater evil that is on the
verge of happening.

U.S. v. Aguilar et al., 883 F.2d 662 (CA9 1989)
** The MPC charges legislatures, judges and juries the task of ranking
evils – not the individual.
Consent

A defense that has nothing to do with necessity.

Generally, consent is not a justification for committing crimes
– although there are four exceptions:
1) No serious injury results from the consensual crime.
2) The injury happens during a sporting event.
3) The conduct benefits the consenting person, such as when a doctor
performs surgery.
4) The consent is to sexual conduct.

State v. Shelley, 929 P.2d 489 (Wash.App. 1997)