Criminal Law 2.8 Criminal Defenses Law & Justice - Meddock

Defenses For a conviction to occur in a criminal case, the prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the act in question with the required intent. Defendants are not required to present a defense. Defenses fall into the following categories: No crime has been committed Defendant did not commit the crime Defendant committed a criminal act, but the act was excusable or justified Defendant committed a criminal act but is not criminally responsible for his or her actions.

“NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED” Defendant must prove either (a) no crime was committed or (b) there was no criminal intent. Example: If Katie accidentally takes the wrong Acura home, she can’t be convicted of car theft because she didn’t intend to steal the car.

“THE DEFENDANT DID NOT COMMIT THE CRIME” Assuming the crime has been committed, but the defendant did not commit it, they must present an alibi: evidence that the defendant was somewhere else at the time the crime was committed.

“THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT, BUT THE ACT WAS EXCUSABLE OR JUSTIFIED” Defenses for this category include: Self-Defense: a person has the right to use reasonable force in self-defense. There must be a threat of imminent danger of bodily harm. The defender can not continue to use force after the attacker has been stopped. Defense of Property or Others: a person has the right to defend another person from an attack about to occur or to use reasonable, nondeadly force to protect property.

“THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT BUT IS NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OR HER ACTIONS.” Infancy: children under a specific age shall not be tried for their crimes but shall be turned over to juvenile court. Intoxication: defendants can claim that at the time of a crime, they were too intoxicated to know what they were doing. Voluntary intoxication is usually not a defense. Insanity: people who have a mental disease or defect should not be convicted if they don’t know what they’re doing or don’t know if it’s right or wrong.

“THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT BUT IS NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OR HER ACTIONS.” Entrapment: the defendant committed a criminal act but claims he or she was induced to commit the crime by a law enforcement officer. It must be proven that the defendant would not have committed the crime if it weren’t for the inducement of the police officer. Duress: the defendant committed the crime as a result of coercion or a threat of immediate danger to life or personal safety. Necessity: the defendant committed a crime because they were compelled to react to an unavoidable situation in order to protect life.

“THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ACT BUT IS NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OR HER ACTIONS.” Prevention of Crime: law enforcement officials can claim this defense, which allows them to violate the law if they do so reasonably. Diminished Capacity: the defendant can claim that they are not insane, but suffer from a mental impairment that makes them unable to formulate the required intent for a particular defense. Usually used to lower charge from first-degree to second-degree murder.