-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
/
s09-01-criminal-defenses.html
197 lines (181 loc) · 23.4 KB
/
s09-01-criminal-defenses.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<link href="shared/bookhub.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">
<title>Criminal Defenses</title>
</head>
<body>
<div id=navbar-top class="navbar">
<div class="navbar-part left">
<a href="s09-00-criminal-defenses-part-1.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-left.png"></a> <a href="s09-00-criminal-defenses-part-1.html">Previous Section</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part middle">
<a href="index.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-up.png"></a> <a href="index.html">Table of Contents</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part right">
<a href="s09-02-self-defense.html">Next Section</a> <a href="s09-02-self-defense.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-right.png"></a>
</div>
</div>
<div id="book-content">
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01" condition="start-of-chunk" version="5.0" lang="en">
<h2 class="title editable block">
<span class="title-prefix">5.1</span> Criminal Defenses</h2>
<div class="learning_objectives editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_n01">
<h3 class="title">Learning Objectives</h3>
<ol class="orderedlist" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_l01">
<li>Distinguish between a denial or failure of proof defense and an affirmative defense.</li>
<li>Distinguish between imperfect and perfect defenses.</li>
<li>Distinguish between factual and legal defenses.</li>
<li>Give examples of factual and legal defenses.</li>
<li>Distinguish between defenses based on justification and excuse.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_p01">A plethora of criminal defenses exist. Defenses may completely <em class="emphasis">exonerate</em> the criminal defendant, resulting in an acquittal, or <em class="emphasis">reduce the severity</em> of the offense. <a class="xref" href="storm_1.0-ch03#storm_1.0-ch03">Chapter 3 "Constitutional Protections"</a> discussed defenses based on the federal Constitution. This chapter reviews the categorization of nonconstitutional criminal defenses, along with the elements of various defenses sanctioning the use of force.</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Categorization of Defenses</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_p01">Defenses can be categorized as denial or failure of proof, affirmative, imperfect, or perfect. Defenses can also be categorized as factual, legal, based on justification, or excuse. Lastly, defenses can be created by a court (<span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">common law</a><span class="glossdef">A defense created by a court.</span></span>), or created by a state or federal legislature (<span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">statutory</a><span class="glossdef">A defense created by a state or federal legislature.</span></span>).</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Definition of Denial or Failure of Proof and Affirmative Defenses</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s01_p01">As stated in <a class="xref" href="storm_1.0-ch02#storm_1.0-ch02">Chapter 2 "The Legal System in the United States"</a>, a criminal defendant will be acquitted if the prosecution cannot prove <em class="emphasis">every element</em> of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In certain cases, the defendant can either <em class="emphasis">deny</em> that a criminal element(s) exists or simply sit back and wait for the prosecution to fail in meeting its burden of proof. This legal strategy is sometimes referred to as either a <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">denial or failure of proof defense</a><span class="glossdef">The defendant denies that an element of the offense exists and prevents the prosecution from meeting its burden of proof.</span></span>.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s01_p02">An <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">affirmative defense</a><span class="glossdef">A defense that raises an issue separate from the elements of a crime.</span></span> is not connected to the prosecution’s burden of proof. When the defendant asserts an affirmative defense, the defendant raises a <em class="emphasis">new</em> issue that must be proven to a certain evidentiary standard. State statutes often specify whether a defense is affirmative. The Model Penal Code defines an affirmative defense as a defense that is deemed affirmative in the Code or a separate statute, or that “involves a matter of excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant” (Model Penal Code § 1.12 (3) (c)). Procedurally, the defendant must assert any affirmative defense before or during the trial, or the defense cannot be used as grounds for an appeal.</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s01_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Example of an Affirmative Defense</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s01_s01_p01">A fight breaks out at a party, and Juan is severely injured. Jasmine and Jerome are arrested and charged for battering Juan. Jerome claims that <em class="emphasis">he</em> did not touch Juan; <em class="emphasis">someone else</em> battered him. Jasmine claims that <em class="emphasis">she</em> did not batter Juan because she was legally defending herself against <em class="emphasis">Juan’s</em> attack. Jerome’s claim focuses on the elements of battery and asserts that these elements cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Technically, Jerome can do nothing and be acquitted if the prosecution fails to prove that he was the criminal actor. Jasmine’s self-defense claim is an <strong class="emphasis bold">affirmative</strong> defense. Jasmine must do something to be acquitted: she must prove that Juan attacked <em class="emphasis">her</em> to a certain evidentiary standard.</p>
<div class="figure large editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s01_s01_f01">
<p class="title"><span class="title-prefix">Figure 5.1</span> Denial and Affirmative Defenses</p>
<img src="section_09/35d2373636d393dd7ec8468b05d7be93.jpg">
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s01_s02">
<h2 class="title editable block">Burden of Proof for Affirmative Defenses</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s01_s02_p01">As stated in <a class="xref" href="storm_1.0-ch02#storm_1.0-ch02">Chapter 2 "The Legal System in the United States"</a>, states vary as to their requirements for the defendant’s burden of proof when asserting an affirmative defense.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn05_001">Findlaw.com, “The Insanity Defense among the States,” findlaw.com website, accessed October 11, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/insanity-defense/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html">http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/insanity-defense/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html</a>.</span> Different defenses also have different burdens of proof. Some states require the defendant to meet the burden of production, but require the prosecution to thereafter meet the burden of persuasion, <em class="emphasis">disproving</em> the defense to a preponderance of evidence, or in some states, beyond a reasonable doubt. Other states require the defendant to meet the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. In such states, the defendant’s evidentiary standard is preponderance of evidence, <em class="emphasis">not</em> beyond a reasonable doubt. In the example given in <a class="xref" href="#storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s01_s01">Section 5 "Example of an Affirmative Defense"</a>, for Jasmine’s self-defense claim, Jasmine must prove she was defending herself by meeting either the burden of production or the burden of production and persuasion to a preponderance of evidence, depending on the jurisdiction.</p>
<div class="figure large editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s01_s02_f01">
<p class="title"><span class="title-prefix">Figure 5.2</span> Diagram of the Criminal Burden of Proof</p>
<img src="section_09/e98c139269e6c3366c28db9c87f9897d.jpg">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s02">
<h2 class="title editable block">Definition of Imperfect and Perfect Defenses</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s02_p01">As stated previously, a defense can reduce the severity of the offense, or completely exonerate the defendant from criminal responsibility. If a defense reduces the severity of the offense, it is called an <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">imperfect defense</a><span class="glossdef">A defense that reduces the severity of the offense.</span></span>. If a defense results in an acquittal, it is called a <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">perfect defense</a><span class="glossdef">A defense that results in an acquittal if successful.</span></span>. The difference between the two is significant. A defendant who is successful with an imperfect defense is still <em class="emphasis">guilty</em> of a crime; a defendant who is successful with a perfect defense is <em class="emphasis">innocent</em>.</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s02_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Example of Imperfect and Perfect Defenses</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s02_s01_p01">LuLu flies into a rage and kills her sister Lola after she catches Lola sleeping with her fiancé. LuLu is thereafter charged with first-degree murder. LuLu decides to pursue two defenses. First, LuLu claims that the killing should be <em class="emphasis">manslaughter</em> rather than first-degree murder because she honestly but unreasonably believed Lola was going to attack <em class="emphasis">her</em>, so she thought she was acting in self-defense. Second, LuLu claims she was insane at the time the killing occurred. The claim of manslaughter is an <strong class="emphasis bold">imperfect</strong> defense that will reduce LuLu’s sentence, but will not acquit her of criminal homicide. The claim of insanity is a <strong class="emphasis bold">perfect</strong> defense that will result in an acquittal.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s03">
<h2 class="title editable block">Definition of Factual and Legal Defenses</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s03_p01">A defense must be based on specific <em class="emphasis">grounds</em>. If a defense is based on an issue of <strong class="emphasis bold">fact</strong>, it is a <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">factual defense</a><span class="glossdef">A defense based on an issue of fact.</span></span>. If a defense is based on an issue of <strong class="emphasis bold">law</strong>, it is a <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">legal defense</a><span class="glossdef">A defense based on an issue of law.</span></span>.</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s03_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Example of Factual and Legal Defenses</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s03_s01_p01">Armando is charged with the burglary of Roman’s residence. Armando decides to pursue two defenses. First, Armando claims that he was with Phil on the date and time of the burglary. This is called an <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">alibi defense</a><span class="glossdef">A factual defense that claims the defendant was somewhere else when the crime occurred.</span></span>. Second, Armando claims that it is too late to prosecute him for burglary because of the <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">expiration of the statute of limitations</a><span class="glossdef">A legal defense that claims too much time has elapsed since the defendant committed the crime, so the prosecution can no longer legally prosecute the defendant.</span></span>. Armando’s alibi defense is a <strong class="emphasis bold">factual</strong> defense; it is based on the <em class="emphasis">fact</em> that Armando could not have committed the burglary because he was somewhere else at the time it occurred. Armando’s statute of limitations defense is a <strong class="emphasis bold">legal</strong> defense because it is based on a <em class="emphasis">statute</em> that limits the amount of time the government has to prosecute Armando for burglary.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s04">
<h2 class="title editable block">Definition of Justification and Excuse</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s04_p01">With the exception of alibi, most affirmative defenses are based on either <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">justification</a><span class="glossdef">The basis for an affirmative defense that claims criminal conduct is justified under the circumstances.</span></span> or <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">excuse</a><span class="glossdef">The basis for an affirmative defense that claims the defendant should be excused for his or her conduct.</span></span>. Typically, justification and excuse defenses admit that the defendant committed the criminal act with the requisite intent, but insist that the conduct should not be criminal.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s04_p02">A defense based on justification focuses on the <em class="emphasis">offense</em>. A justification defense claims that the defendant’s conduct should be legal rather than criminal because it supports a principle valued by society. A defense based on excuse focuses on the <em class="emphasis">defendant</em>. An excuse defense claims that even though the defendant committed the criminal act with criminal intent, the defendant should not be responsible for his or her behavior.</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s04_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Example of Justification and Excuse</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s04_s01_p01">Review the examples of affirmative, imperfect, and perfect defenses given in <a class="xref" href="#storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01">Section 5.1.1 "Categorization of Defenses"</a>. Jasmine’s self-defense claim is based on <strong class="emphasis bold">justification</strong>. Society believes that individuals should be able to protect themselves from harm, so actions taken in self-defense are justified and noncriminal. Note that a self-defense claim focuses on the <em class="emphasis">offense</em> (battery) in light of the circumstances (to prevent imminent harm). LuLu’s insanity claim is based on <strong class="emphasis bold">excuse</strong>. Although LuLu killed Lola with criminal intent, if LuLu is truly insane it is not be fair or just to punish her for her behavior. Note that an insanity claim focuses on the <em class="emphasis">defendant</em> (a legally insane individual) and whether he or she should be criminally responsible for his or her conduct.</p>
<div class="table block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s04_s01_t01" frame="all">
<p class="title"><span class="title-prefix">Table 5.1</span> Categorization of Defenses</p>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Defense Type</th>
<th>Characteristics</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Common-law</td>
<td>Created by a court</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Statutory</td>
<td>Created by a state or federal legislature</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Denial or failure of proof</td>
<td>Creates doubt in one or more elements of the offense and prevents the prosecution from meeting its burden of proof</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Affirmative</td>
<td>Raises an issue separate from the elements of the offense</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Imperfect</td>
<td>Reduces the severity of the offense</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Perfect</td>
<td>Results in an acquittal</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Factual</td>
<td>Based on an issue of fact</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Legal</td>
<td>Based on an issue of law</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Alibi</td>
<td>Asserts that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Expiration of the statute of limitations</td>
<td>Asserts that it is too late for the government to prosecute the defendant for the crime</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Justification</td>
<td>Claims that the criminal conduct is justified under the circumstances</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Excuse</td>
<td>Claims that the defendant should be excused for his or her conduct</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div class="key_takeaways editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s04_s01_n01">
<h3 class="title">Key Takeaways</h3>
<ul class="itemizedlist" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s04_s01_l01">
<li>A denial or failure of proof defense focuses on the elements of the crime and prevents the prosecution from meeting its burden of proof. An affirmative defense is a defense that raises an issue separate from the elements of the crime. Most affirmative defenses are based on justification or excuse and must be raised before or during the trial to preserve the issue for appeal.</li>
<li>An imperfect defense reduces the severity of the offense; a perfect defense results in an acquittal.</li>
<li>If the basis for a defense is an issue of fact, it is called a factual defense. If the basis for a defense is an issue of law, it is called a legal defense.</li>
<li>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 when the crime occurred. An example of a legal defense is a claim that the statute of limitations has expired, which asserts that it is too late for the government to prosecute the defendant for the crime.</li>
<li>An affirmative defense is based on justification when it claims that criminal conduct is justified under the circumstances. An affirmative defense is based on excuse when it claims that the criminal defendant should be excused for his or her conduct.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="exercises editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s04_s01_n02">
<h3 class="title">Exercises</h3>
<p class="para" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s04_s01_p02">Answer the following questions. Check your answers using the answer key at the end of the chapter.</p>
<ol class="orderedlist" id="storm_1.0-ch05_s01_s01_s04_s01_l02">
<li>Carol is on trial for battery, a general intent crime. Carol puts on a defense that proves her conduct was accidental, <em class="emphasis">not</em> intentional. Is this an affirmative defense? Why or why not?</li>
<li>Read <em class="emphasis">State v. Burkhart</em>, 565 S.E.2d 298 (2002). In <em class="emphasis">Burkhart</em>, the defendant was convicted of three counts of murder. The defendant claimed he acted in self-defense. The jury instruction given during the defendant’s trial stated that the prosecution had the burden of disproving self-defense. However, the instruction did not state that the prosecution’s burden of disproving self-defense was <em class="emphasis">beyond a reasonable doubt</em>. Did the Supreme Court of South Carolina uphold the defendant’s conviction for the murders? The case is available at this link: <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1066148868024499763&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1066148868024499763&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr</a>.</li>
<li>Read <em class="emphasis">Hoagland v. State</em>, 240 P.3d 1043 (2010). In <em class="emphasis">Hoagland</em>, the defendant wanted to assert a <strong class="emphasis bold">necessity</strong> defense to the crime of driving while under the influence. The Nevada Legislature had never addressed or mentioned a necessity defense. Did the Supreme Court of Nevada allow the defendant to present the necessity defense? The case is available at this link: <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8002120339805439441&q=Hoagland+v.+State&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2009">http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8002120339805439441&q= Hoagland+v.+State&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2009</a>.</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id=navbar-bottom class="navbar">
<div class="navbar-part left">
<a href="s09-00-criminal-defenses-part-1.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-left.png"></a> <a href="s09-00-criminal-defenses-part-1.html">Previous Section</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part middle">
<a href="index.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-up.png"></a> <a href="index.html">Table of Contents</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part right">
<a href="s09-02-self-defense.html">Next Section</a> <a href="s09-02-self-defense.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-right.png"></a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<script type="text/javascript" src="shared/book.js"></script>
</body>
</html>