Failure of Proof / Presumption of Innocence

Offense Modification (did not cause the harm sought to be prevented by the statute) - DeMinimus statues - spanking child not battery - speeding to get hospital

Public Policy - Statue of limitation (finality) and immunity (helping prosecution)

Justification - right thing(self defense, etc) 

Excuse (Insane, drugged, duress)

Presumption of Innocence - state did not overcome burden of proof

Burden of proof shifts to defense when using an affirmative defense

Standard is preponderance of evidence - high bar - state cannot lower - 

Very fact driven - need fact pattern

Reqwuires triggering condition that permits a necessary and proportional response

PA also requires immediacy

Self defense, defense of others, defense of property

1. Cannot be primary aggressor
2. Initial aggressor has duty to retreat
3. Words cannot make you an aggressor
4. Imminent threat required
5. Proportionality required
6. Necessity - no other reasonable alternative (run)
7. Retreat (required for deadly force except if own home - Castle doctrine - not required for non dead force)
8. Need Trigger (according to ORPP - Goetz not ORP)
9. Reasonable belief defense was required (ORP)

Deadly force defined as "readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury"

Defendant must KNOW that actions, under the circumstances, are readily capable of causing death or SBI

Can estimate the necessity

Heat of conflict can be mitigating if too much force is used

No time to reflect

If able, must retreat if able before using deadly force

Legal presumption of deadly force is necessary when

unlawfully and forcefully attempt or actual entry of an

Dwelling, residence, work or occupied vehicle - wherever defendant has a right to be present

Defendant knows or reason to believe that unlawful and forceful entry is or has occurred

No duty to retreat in use of deadly force

Circumstances of the person defended and use the standards for justification

Defendant has same justification of the person who is defended

Same estimation of force required

MPC duty to retreat or help/convince other to retreat

May also require request to stop

Except for home/castle doctrine cannot use deadly force

Must show that making a request to cease would not be effective

"Victim" of the defendant's force does not already have possessory rights (did you steal it from him)

The harm avoided is greater than the harm caused

Act done to prevent significant evil

No other alternative

Harm caused is not disproportionate to harm avoided

Cannot eat others to keep self alive, steal food to eat

Trespass, fire break, move land for flooding, normally to avoid a natural distaster

Attempt to cause, or intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another (simple assault - if mutual fight than lowe grade of assault)

under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to value of human life (aggravated)

Categories for Legal Excuse 

Duress - Intoxication - Insanity / diminished capacity

Caused by factors outside her control

Evil intent cannot be inferred from wrongful conduct

Did the actor have

1. an understanding of the facts related to the conduct
2. Appreciate that the conduct was in violation of the law
3. Have the ability to conform their conduct to the law
   1. Lack capacity (internal)
   2. Not have fair opportunity (external)

Affirmative defense -was coerced into criminal act

1. Imminent threat of unlawful FORCE against actor or another person - death or SBI
2. A person of reasonable FIRMNESS would not be able to resist - well grounded fear that threat will be realized
3. No opportunity to ESCAPE - cannot be eggshell duress

Different than extortion (threat to reputation or money) and necessity (natural disaster)

Hard to use; if too drunk for mensRea=too drunk to do crime

IF voluntary, the affirmative defense may negate mens rea - only specific intent, not general intent

State by state determination of whether the defense is allowed and to what extent - PA does not allow

Involuntary Intoxication much easier to use as defense

1. Lacks capacity to understand the proceedings and
2. Unable to assist in her defense

If above two are met, then the legal proceeding cannot move forward against a defendant who is not competent

There are legal procedures to raise, evaluate and address incompetencyMentall

• Different than incompetent
• Can be competent and mentally ill at the same time
• Insanity is an affirmative defense and a legal construct
• Different than medical or mental health diagnosis
• Can be mentally ill but not insane (depressed)
• Insanity defense will be effected by procedural and evidentiary issues

• Reflect community values
• Allow scientific/psychiatric evidence
• Make the science be understandable to experts, lawyers, and trier of fact (judge or jury)
• Preserve the authority of the trier of fact to render a decision on insanity

1. M'naughten
2. Irresistable impulse
3. Product test (Durham)
4. MPC 4.01
5. Guilty but mentally ill is alternative finding

Affirmative defense

Mental disease or mental defect negates the mens rea of a crime charged

Exonerate the defendant or 

Reduces the degree of crime charged

Only applies to specific (not general) intent

• General intent does not require that the specific harm be produced - does not require motive to hurt
  • assault, battery, trespass; FI, Rape
  • You intended to punch, but not to break nose

• Specific Intent requires purpose, knowingly, voluntarily
  • Intended to deprive owner = theft, murder, forgery, embezzlement, inchoate crimes (attempt, solicit, conspiracy)

Caption (trespassory taking) and 

Asportation (carrying away - or now "unlawful control") with the

Animus Fundi (intent to permanently deprive of possession)

Contructive mens rea and actus reah (wire transfer of funds not technically "asportation" of physical money)

By unlawful taking

By deception

By extortion

By property lost, mislaid or delivered by mistake

By receiving stolen property

Of services

Failure to make required disposition of funds

Unauthorized use of automobile

Retail theft

Theft from motor vehicle

B&E

the House

of Another

in Nightime

Intent to

commit a felony therein

Can be night or day, expanded to dwelling, etc

Key is if anyone is present

Taking property from the person of another by force or threat of force

Justification - was not wrong - War, self defense, necessity

Excuse - wrong but avoid punishment - Insane, drugged, duress

Assessments/determination processes of insanity need to

1. Reflect community values - flexible
2. Allow psych and science evidence
3. Be structured so that all can understand the science
4. Preserve the full autonomy of the trier of fact to render a decision

Still majority law

Every man presumed to be sane - Two Prongs:

1. Do not know nature and quality of the act (did they know what they were doing?)
2. Do not know if it is wrong

Bimodal - all or nothing - yes or no

Burden of proof on defendant - balance of probablilities

Hard to prove - andrea yates did not work

Complete breakdown of self control due to mental illness

Basically mcnauton plus inability of self control

NOT heat of passion

Test of would you do it still if a policeman were at your side

Behavior can be proved as a product of the mental illness - requires experts to testify that this is the case

However, leaves too much control in expert hands, hard for jury to make the determination - too ambiguous

1. Does not know (cognitive prong) or not appreciate the crime - did not know right from wrong -  kill but OK - this would have been Andrea Yates OR
2. Unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law (irresistible impulse - volitional prong)

With knowing intent to defraud or injure anyone by

1. Alter writing of another without authority
2. Writing the purports to be act of another who did not authorize the act
3. Utters any writing known to be forged (check fraud)
4. Bad checks - still criminal but should be civil matter
5. Access device fraud - mac machine, steal cable