Kara Sears
A criminal defense is a legal argument that is raised in an attempt to contest the charges against a defendant. Common law defenses are used to limit or avoid liability and can result in a dismissal of charges, an acquittal, or a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. Some common defenses include self-defense, necessity, duress, insanity, consent, abandonment, entrapment, intoxication, mistaken identity, and alibi. These defenses provide a valid reason for the defendant's actions or assert that the accused was not present at the scene of the crime. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defense can create reasonable doubt by challenging the credibility of witnesses, attacking the evidence, or pointing out inconsistencies.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Defenses to crimes | Self-defense, duress, entrapment, consent, abandonment, insanity, intoxication, mistake, necessity, alibi |
| Motion to dismiss the charges | Lack of evidence, violation of defendant's constitutional rights |
| Defenses to limit or avoid liability | Lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction of the court, failure to state a cause of action, affirmative defenses, defenses conferred by statute, ex turpi causa non oritur actio, volenti non fit injuria, in pari delicto, act of God |
| Defense of justification | Self-defense, defense of others, defense of property |
| Defense of intoxication | Involuntary intoxication, voluntary intoxication |
| Defense of consent | Sexual intercourse with consent, victim consented to harm |
| Defense of abandonment/withdrawal | Defendant initially intended to commit a crime but later withdrew from participation |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Self-defence
In the United States, self-defence is considered an affirmative defence, used to justify the use of force by one person against another under specific circumstances. The general rule is that a person may use such force as is reasonably necessary to defend themselves against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence. The use of force must be proportionate to the danger, and the person defending themselves cannot be the initial aggressor.
In cases involving non-deadly force, the person must reasonably believe that their use of force was necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful physical harm. When deadly force is used, the person must reasonably believe that it was immediately necessary to prevent great bodily harm or death. The majority of U.S. jurisdictions have removed the duty to retreat before using deadly force, though this may still be relevant to the reasonableness of the force used.
The defence of self-defence can fail if the defendant is found to be the initial aggressor, though this may be mitigated if they abandoned the combat or communicated their abandonment to the other party.
Diplomats and International Law: Prosecution and Accountability
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Insanity
The insanity defense takes different forms in different jurisdictions, and there are variations in legal systems regarding its availability, definition, and burden of proof, as well as the role of judges, juries, and medical experts. In some jurisdictions, such as those with jury trials, the decision about the sanity of the accused is typically determined by the jury.
The key aspect of the insanity defense is the defendant's inability to appreciate the nature and quality of their actions during the commission of the crime due to a mental disease or defect. This is often assessed through the M'Naghten Rules of 1843, which state that a defendant is deemed insane if they were incapable of knowing what they were doing or if they did not know that their actions were wrong. The M'Naghten rule has been widely adopted in the United States and has been the basis for insanity laws in many states.
The burden of proof for the insanity defense has shifted over time. Originally, most states required the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not insane. However, following the acquittal of John W. Hinckley for the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in 1982, many states reformed their laws. Now, the defense attorneys in many states are required to show clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was insane.
It is important to distinguish between competency and criminal responsibility in the context of the insanity defense. Competency refers to the defendant's present condition and their ability to assist their attorney and make informed decisions about the trial strategy. On the other hand, criminal responsibility addresses the defendant's condition at the time the crime was committed and their ability to understand the criminality of their actions.
In summary, the insanity defense is a complex and evolving area of criminal law that varies across jurisdictions. It involves assessing the defendant's mental state and understanding of their actions at the time of the criminal act, with the potential outcome of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict.
Divorced Catholics: Sacristan Service and Canon Law
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Byrna SD [Self Defense] Kinetic Launcher Ultimate Bundle - Non Lethal Kinetic Projectile Launcher, Home & Personal Defense | Proudly Assembled in The USA](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81wu-phEIPL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
Consent
In the case of assault and battery, consent may be used as a defense if the harm caused was a reasonably foreseeable aspect of the conduct and a risk that would reasonably be accepted. For example, participants in a boxing match are deemed to have consented to the physical contact and possible harm that may occur during the match. However, it is important to note that consent cannot be used as a defense if there is a possibility of serious bodily injury.
In all cases, the defendant must prove that consent was given and that the person giving consent was legally capable of doing so. This can be challenging, especially in cases where consent is implied rather than explicitly expressed.
It is worth noting that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defense does not have to prove innocence. The defense phase of a trial occurs after the prosecution phase, and it includes opening and closing arguments, as well as cross-examination.
Common-Law Relationships in Alberta: Understanding the Legal Definition
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Intoxication
In the case of involuntary intoxication, the defendant can argue that they were not aware that their actions were wrong or that they were deprived of their ability to refrain from committing the criminal act. This type of defense can be used for both general and specific intent crimes, as intoxication may have prevented the defendant from understanding right from wrong. Involuntary intoxication can be a complete defense to all crimes if it places the defendant in a state of mind that would qualify them as legally insane.
Voluntary intoxication, on the other hand, is a more complex defense. It refers to the intentional consumption or injection of a substance that the individual knows can lead to intoxication. This type of defense is generally applicable only to specific intent crimes and is less likely to be accepted by juries, especially when the defendant willingly brought the intoxication upon themselves. However, in some jurisdictions, voluntary intoxication can be used as a defense to any crime, including general intent crimes. It is important to note that voluntary intoxication rarely serves as a successful complete defense but can reduce the defendant's culpability.
The distinction between specific and general intent crimes is crucial when considering the intoxication defense. A general intent crime refers to the intent to commit an act without intending a specific result, while a specific intent crime involves intending to commit an act and achieve a specific result. For example, in the crime of assault, there is a requirement to intend harm. If an individual becomes violent due to involuntary intoxication and commits an assault, they may argue that the intoxication prevented them from forming the specific intent to cause harm.
How to Remove Upper Receiver with Law Tactical Adapter?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Alibi
In criminal law, an alibi is a legal defense strategy where a defendant provides evidence that they couldn't have committed the crime because they were somewhere else when the crime occurred. The goal of an alibi defense is to present compelling evidence that creates reasonable doubt about the defendant's presence at the scene of the crime, leading to a finding of not guilty.
The prosecution has the burden of proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed the crime, whereas the defendant does not have to prove their innocence. Most successful defense strategies are based on a "preponderance of the evidence," but for an alibi defense to succeed, conclusive proof is not required.
The three essential elements of an alibi defense are:
- The defendant was not present at the time or place of the crime.
- The defendant had no reasonable opportunity to commit the crime.
- The defendant could not have committed the crime by other means.
Evidence supporting an alibi defense can include timestamped video surveillance, photographs, eyewitness accounts, GPS records, credit or debit card receipts, phone records, and supervisor statements, among other forms of evidence. Typically, a defendant must give prosecutors written notice of their intention to present an alibi defense to challenge the criminal allegations against them.
The Global Reach of Law: International or Universal?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
A common law defense is a legal argument raised by a defendant in an attempt to avoid criminal conviction or civil liability.
An example of a common law defense is a motion to dismiss the charges due to lack of evidence.
Other common law defenses include self-defense, defense of others, necessity, duress, insanity, entrapment, consent, abandonment, intoxication, and mistake.
The goal of a common law defense is to create reasonable doubt and avoid liability by pokeing holes in the prosecution's case, challenging witness credibility, attacking evidence, or pointing out inconsistencies.
The defense phase of a trial occurs after the prosecution phase, including opening and closing arguments and cross-examination.
