{"id":1240,"date":"2017-09-27T17:43:16","date_gmt":"2017-09-27T17:43:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-fmcc-criminallaw\/?post_type=chapter&p=1240"},"modified":"2019-07-05T15:03:49","modified_gmt":"2019-07-05T15:03:49","slug":"5-6-end-of-chapter-material","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-criminallaw\/chapter\/5-6-end-of-chapter-material\/","title":{"raw":"5.6 End-of-Chapter Material","rendered":"5.6 End-of-Chapter Material"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Summary<\/h4>\r\n

Defenses can be denial or failure of proof, affirmative, imperfect, perfect, factual, legal, common law (created by case law), or statutory (created by a state or federal legislature). A denial or failure of proof defense creates doubt in one or more of the elements of the offense and prevents the prosecution from meeting its burden of proof. An affirmative defense raises an issue separate from the elements of the offense and must be asserted before or during the trial or it cannot serve as the basis for an appeal. Defendants have either the burden of production or the burden of production and persuasion to a preponderance of evidence for an affirmative defense. An imperfect defense reduces the severity of the offense, or sentence. A perfect defense results in an acquittal. A factual defense is grounded in the facts of the case, while a legal defense depends on a statute or common-law principle. An example of a factual defense is an alibi defense, which asserts that the defendant could not have committed the crime because he or she was somewhere else at the time the crime occurred. An example of a legal defense is expiration of the statute of limitations, which means it is too late to prosecute the defendant for the offense.<\/p>\r\n

Defenses can also be based on justification or excuse. A defense based on justification focuses on the offense and deems the conduct worthy of protection from criminal responsibility. A defense based on excuse focuses on the defendant and excuses his or her conduct under the circumstances.<\/p>\r\n

Self-defense justifies the defendant\u2019s conduct in using physical force as protective. Self-defense is legal only when the defendant is faced with an unprovoked, imminent attack, and it is objectively reasonable that the degree of force used in response is necessary to avoid the attack. The defendant can be the initial aggressor and still use self-defense if the attacked individual uses too much force in response to the defendant\u2019s attack or if the defendant withdraws from the attack and is still pursued by the attacked individual. The attack does not necessarily have to be imminent if the defendant is a battered wife. Deadly force is any force that can kill under the circumstances. Deadly force can be used in self-defense only if the defendant is faced with imminent death, serious bodily injury, or the commission of a serious felony. Some jurisdictions require the defendant to retreat before resorting to deadly force, while others allow the defendant to stand his or her ground.<\/p>\r\n

In most states, an individual can defend another to the same extent as self-defense. If a defendant is honestly but unreasonably mistaken about the fact that he or she needs to respond in self-defense or defense of others, imperfect self-defense or defense of others may be appropriate, depending on the jurisdiction. A defendant can also defend property using nondeadly force from an imminent threat of damage, loss, or theft. Real property is land and anything permanently attached to it, while personal property is any movable object. In many jurisdictions, a trespasser may be ejected from real property using nondeadly force after the trespasser has been requested to leave.<\/p>\r\n

Defense of habitation is distinct from defense of real property in most states. Modern laws called castle laws expand the use of force to defend habitation. Castle laws eliminate the duty to retreat when in the home and provide civil and criminal immunity from prosecution for the use of deadly force. Deadly force can be used against a trespasser who enters occupied premises without consent of the owner when there is an objectively reasonable belief that the occupants will be seriously injured or killed.<\/p>\r\n

Law enforcement can also use force to arrest or apprehend a criminal. If the force is deadly, it is considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and is scrutinized under an objectively reasonable standard.<\/p>\r\n

The defense of choice of evils (called the necessity defense in some jurisdictions) permits the defendant to commit a crime if the harm caused is less severe than harm that will occur if the crime is not committed. In general, criminal homicide cannot be defended by choice of evils. Duress, a closely related defense, can sanction the use of force when the defendant is imminently threatened with serious bodily injury or death. Like choice of evils, the degree of force used pursuant to duress should be nondeadly.<\/p>\r\n

The victim can also consent to the defendant\u2019s conduct, creating a consent defense, as long as the consent is given knowingly and voluntarily, the conduct is sexual or occurs during a sporting event, and the conduct does not involve serious bodily injury or death.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n

You Be the Defense Attorney<\/h3>\r\n

You are a well-known private defense attorney with a perfect record. Read the prompt, review the case, and then decide whether you would accept<\/strong> or reject<\/strong> it if you want to maintain your level of success. Check your answers using the answer key at the end of the chapter.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n \t
  1. The defendant and his wife argued. She raised a knife above her head and stated, \u201cDon\u2019t make me use this.\u201d The defendant took the knife away and thereafter stabbed the victim forty-three times in the head and chest with it. The defendant wants to make an imperfect self-defense<\/em> argument. Will you accept or reject the case? Read State v. Perez<\/em>, 840 P.2d 1118 (1992). The case is available at this link: http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=7422940810428798296&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr<\/a>.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. The defendants crossed a police tape and trespassed on a medical clinic\u2019s private property while protesting abortion. The defendants want to make arguments in support of necessity<\/em>, defense of others<\/em>, and duress<\/em>. The basis of the defendants\u2019 claims is that they are protecting the lives of unborn children. Will you accept or reject the case? Read Allison v. Birmingham<\/em>, 580 So.2d 1377 (1991). The case is available at this link: http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=8254507993974001416&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr<\/a>.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. The defendant, a police officer, shot the victim twice after being summoned to the victim\u2019s home by his wife. The victim was intoxicated and armed with two small steak knives. The defendant shot the victim subsequent to a somewhat lengthy encounter during which the victim lunged at him with the knives. The victim claimed he was putting the knives down or about to put the knives down. The victim is suing the defendant for damages based on use of excessive force<\/em> in arrest or apprehension. Will you accept or reject the case? Read Roy v. Inhabitants of Lewiston<\/em>, 42 F.3d 691 (1994). The case is available at this link: http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=8822695050372354696&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr<\/a>.<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. The defendant, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers\u2019 Cooperative, distributes marijuana to qualified patients under California\u2019s Compassionate Use Act, which allows the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes. The US government wants to stop this distribution under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which prohibits possession and use of marijuana under any circumstances. The defendant wants to continue distribution under a claim of medical necessity<\/em>. Will you accept or reject the case? Read U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers\u2019 Cooperative<\/em>, 532 U.S. 483 (2001). The case is available at this link: http:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/supct\/pdf\/00-151P.ZO<\/a>.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n

    Cases of Interest<\/h4>\r\n