Excuses as Defenses

1. Excuses as Defenses Bakersfield CollegeCriminal Law Criminal Law Today

2. Calif. Penal Code sect. 26 • All persons are legally capable of committing crimes except:

3. Calif. Penal Code sect. 26 (cont) • Children under the age of 14 years, • In absence of clear proof (“Rebuttable”) that at the time of committing the act charged, they knew of its wrongfulness.

4. Calif. Penal Code sect. 26 (cont) • Idiots, • Possessing an IQ between 0 - 24

5. Calif. Penal Code sect. 26 (cont) • Those who commit the act charged or made the omission under an ignorance or mistake of fact.

6. Calif. Penal Code sect. 26 (cont) • Those who commit the act without being conscious thereof.

7. Calif. Penal Code sect. 26 (cont) • Those who commit the act charged or made the omission charged through accident or misfortune.

8. Calif. Penal Code sect. 26 (cont) • Those (except for crimes punishable by death) who commit the act or made the omission charged under threats or menaces to show they had reasonable cause to believe their lives would be in danger if they refused. “Duress” (more to follow)

9. Calif. Penal Code sect. 26 • PC 26 does not “apply” to the police. • Police may still detain and / or arrest.

10. Calif. Penal Code sect. 26 Examples • A retarded person who has a low IQ who is charged with financial embezzlement. • A person who insists that she was unconscious (be it asleep, intoxicated or due to an injury) at the time her accomplice committed a crime. • A person who held open a paper bag for a teller to put money in it while at gun point by a kidnapper.

11. The Nature of Excuses • Excuses are a category of legal defense in which the defendant claims that some personal condition or circumstance at the time of the act was such that he or she should not be held accountable under the law • Excuses admit that the actions committed were wrong • But the actor should not be held criminally liable or worthy of blame due to special circumstances

12. Duress • Also known as compulsion • A condition under which one is forced to act against one’s will • In his situation, he was unable to resist • Example • A mother who robs a bank when her daughter has been kidnapped and threatened unless the mother performs the act

13. Duress Discussed • Must be based on a showing that the defendant feared for his or her life or was in danger of great bodily harm • Defendant was acting so as to prevent the death or bodily harm of another • The threat must have been immediate, clear, and inescapable, and must not have arisen from some illegal or immoral activity

14. Generally, Duress • Duress is a defense only when the crime committed is less serious than the harm avoided.

15. Intoxication • Rarely an acceptable defense to a criminal charge • Because intoxication is normally voluntary, it is not a “perfect defense” in most jurisdictions • The essence of any defense based on intoxication can be found in the effect that intoxication has on mensrea

16. Voluntary Intoxication • Willful intoxication • Intoxication that is the result of personal choice • Includes the voluntary ingestion, injection, or taking by any other means of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or other substance

17. Involuntary Intoxication • Intoxication that is not willful • Unknowing ingestion of an intoxicating substance • Alcohol • Drug-laced food or drink • May serve as a defense • Must create an incapacity to appreciate the criminality of his acts OR • Creates an incapacity to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law

18. Mistake of fact • Misinterpretation, misunderstanding, or forgetfulness of a fact relating to the subject matter at hand • Belief in the existence of a thing or condition that does not exist • An honest mistake • Generally precludes the actor from criminal liability

19. Ignorance of Fact • Lack of knowledge of some fact relating to the subject matter at hand • Refers to • Misinterpretations of the facts • Misunderstandings of the facts • Can be a defense to a criminal charge • Will not be a defense if a crime was intended (a burglar breaking into the wrong house) • May negate the mens rea required for a specific offense

20. Mistakes and Ignorance… • Mistake of law • A misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the law relevant to a situation at hand • Not an acceptable defense • Ignorance of the law • A lack of knowledge of the law or of the existence of a law relevant to the situation at hand • Not an acceptable defense • Culpable ignorance • The failure to exercise ordinary care to acquire knowledge of the law

21. Age • Also called immaturity defense • Claims certain individuals should not be held criminally responsible because of youth • Also called • Infancy • Immaturity defenses

22. Age Defenses Explained • Children under the age of seven are incapable of rational thought and planned action • Unable to form mens rea • They are too young • “…to know any better” • “…to make a conscious, moral choice between doing good and doing evil”

23. Juvenile Offender • A child who • Violates the criminal law • Commits a “status offense” • A child subject to juvenile court proceedings because a statutorily defined event caused by the person was alleged to have occurred while he or she was under 18 (or the jurisdiction’s specified age) “Best Interest of the Juvenile” • May be waived or transferred to adult court

24. Entrapment (Calif. Law) • An Affirmative Defense used where an officer induced another to commit the crime. • Where the officer puts the unlawful design or intent into the mind of the accused. • Where the police merely provide an opportunity for the accused to commit the crime, no entrapment! • May be committed by a private person acting at the direction of the police. (“Agent”)

25. Entrapment • An improper or illegal inducement to crime by police “or their agents.” • A defense that may be raised when such improper inducements are alleged • No crime would occur if not for government instigation. • The two most common illegal inducements • False representation by police that the unlawful behavior is not prohibited • The inducements are so strong that a person of average will and good intent cannot resist

26. Entrapment Explained • Not an effective defense when • The government merely provided an opportunity or facilities for the commission of the crime • The police only engaged in the “mere fact of deceit” (“Ruse”)

27. Two Different Tests for Entrapment • Subjective approach – was the subject predisposed to commit the crime? • Were there prior convictions for similar crimes • Reputation for committing similar crimes • Readiness to engage in a crime suggested by the police • Most states use this test • Objective approach – was the police action in the case considered “outrageous government conduct”? • (12 states use this test)

28. Syndromes • A syndrome is a complex of signs and symptoms presenting a clinical picture of a disease or disorder • Some defense syndrome strategies include • BWS – Battered woman’s syndrome • Battered child’s syndrome • Rape Trauma / Sexual Abuse syndrome • PMS syndrome • PTS syndrome • Urban survival syndrome

29. Battered Woman’s Syndrome • The best known of the syndromes • A condition characterized by a history of repetitive domestic abuse and learned helplessness • The subjective inability to leave an abusive situation • May provide additional justification for a woman who kills during an episode of beating––when the threat of death or great bodily harm is imminent

30. Defense of Insanity Criminal Law Criminal Law Today By Frank Schmalleger, PH.D

31. Competency to Stand Trial • A finding by a court • When a defendant’s mental competency to stand trial is at issue • The defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding • He has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceeding against him

32. Competency to Stand TrialExplained • Competency to stand trial focuses on the defendant's condition at the time of trial • Competency is not conditional on the defendant’s state at the time when the crime occurred • The federal test to determine competency: • Sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding • Whether he has a relational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him • Once sanity has been recovered, the defendant may be brought to trial

33. Incompetent to Stand Trial • A finding by a court • As a result of a mental illness, defect, or disability • A defendant is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceeding against him or to assist in the preparation of this own defense

34. When Competency Cannot be Restored, the Court May… • Remand the defendant to the custody of the department of health services for the institution of civil commitment proceedings • Appoint a guardian • Release the defendant from custody and dismiss the charges against the defendant

35. Purpose of the Insanity Defense • The need to determine whether a criminal defendant was insane at the time the crime was committed • In our court system, moral blame cannot attach where an act was not the result of a free choice

36. Insanity • Insanity can influence criminal liability in two ways: • It may result in a finding that the mens rea required for a specific crime was lacking, leading the court to conclude that no crime occurred • It may lead to a showing that although the requisite mens rea was present at the time of the crime, the defendant should be excused from legal responsibility because of mental disease or defect

37. Mental Capacity Prop. 8 Calif. Eliminated “Diminished Capacity” Defense • Insanity: • M’naughten Rule • Irresistible Impulse • Durham Test • Substantial Capacity Test (Model Penal Code) • Diminished Capacity

38. M’Naghten Rule • At the time the act was committed: • Defendant was suffering from a defect of reason from a disease of the mind. • Defendant did not know:- nature/quality of his act;- that the act was wrong

39. Irresistible Impulse • Defendant, while not insane, and having an understanding of the nature and quality of his act. • Could not control his behavior. Calif. Law Does not recognize Irresistible Impulse.

40. Substantial Capacity Test • A person is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the conduct, the person lacked the substantial capacity to: • Appreciate the criminality of her conduct or conform to the requirements of the law, • Due to mental disease or defect. Note: Substantial Capacity Test Is the adopted test by the Model Penal Code.

41. Diminished Capacity • A defendant who is not legally insane may be suffering from mental disease or defect which affects the ability to possess the required mental state. • Defense to specific intent crimes. • Admissible at the time of sentencing.

42. Defendant’s Burden • Defendant has the burden: • Of production • Of persuasion • Must prove by a “preponderance of the evidence”

43. Defendant Must Plead • Not Guilty by reason of insanity. • Tried on the issue of sanity. • If found sane = convicted. Double Plea Defendants may plead not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.

44. Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI) • All states patterned their laws after a 1975 Michigan statute the created GBMI • Under GBMI statutes, when insanity defenses are raised at trial, four verdicts are possible • Guilty • Not Guilty • Not guilty by reason of insanity • Guilty but mentally ill

45. GBMI Explained • A GBMI verdict must be returned if • Every element necessary for a conviction has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt • The defendant is found to have been mentally ill at the time of the crime • The defendant was not found to have been legally insane at the time the crime was committed • A finding of GBMI is equivalent to a finding of guilty • The court will sentence the defendant just as a person found guilty of the crime would be • This verdict establishes that the defendant, although mentally ill, was sufficiently in possession of this faculties to be morally blameworthy for his acts

46. The Doctrine of Settled Insanity • The habitual and long-term use of intoxicants or other drugs that results in permanent mental disorders “that are symptomatically and organically similar to mental disorders caused by brain disease” can create the basis for a claim of insanity • Provided that the defendant can meet the required definition of insanity • The nearly unanimous rule is that a mental or brain disease or defect caused by the long-term effects of intoxicants constitutes a mental state that warrants an insanity defense

47. How Widely Used Is the Insanity Defense? • It is not widely used • One study by the NIMH reported that • Less than 1 percent of the cases that come to court claimed insanity defenses • Only 26 percent of all insanity pleas were argued successfully • 90 percent of those who employed the defense had been previously diagnosed with a mental illness

48. How Widely Used Is the Insanity Defense? (Continued) • Other studies reported similar findings • Only 52 of 32,000 cases involved insanity defenses and only 15 were successful • In NYC, an insanity plea is entered in only 1 for every 600 or 700 cases

49. Consequences of an Insanity Finding • Few are immediately released • Nondangerous defendants may not by law be kept longer than necessary to assess their condition • Must are subject to a hearing to determine • Whether or not they are still mentally ill and dangerous to themselves or others • Whether or not confinement in a treatment facility is justified • Most are confined and held at least as long as persons found guilty and sent to prison

50. Abolishing the Insanity Defense • It is difficult to assess insanity from a legal perspective so some advocate a strict mens rea approach to insanity • A mens rea approach would virtually eliminate the insanity defense and would replace it with a test that would assess the presence or absence of the culpable mental state • Three states have moved in this direction: Montana, Utah and Idaho