CCJS230 Chapter 6 Defenses to Criminal Liability Failure of proof scheme defendants raise a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proven the mental element of the crime so they don t have to justify or excuse their conduct because it s not criminal conduct The Insanity Defense Affirmative defense of insanity Insanity defense the legal excuse that defendants aren t responsible for their criminal conduct because it was caused by a mental disease or defect Insanity the legal term that refers to a mental disease or defect that impairs the reason and or will Civil commitment a noncriminal civil proceeding in which courts have the power to decide if defendants who were insane when they committed their crimes are still insane U S v Hinckley 2009 Hinckley already has visits to his mother s home outside D C for six nights Hospital believes he is ready for the next phase Mr Hinckley is permitted to utilize more absences from the Hospital increased freedom and additional privileges to begin integrating himself into his mother s community Hospital evaluates this process to determine whether he is ready to be released from the hospital to live independently in his mother s community The Tests of Insanity are looking for wrong All four tests look at defendants mental capacity but they differ in what they Reason psychologists call it cognition the capacity to tell right from Will psychologists call it volition most of us call it willpower in the insanity tests it refers to defendants power to control their actions 1 Right Wrong Test The McNaughtan Rule the oldest rule it s used in twenty eight states and the federal courts the defendant suffered a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind at the time of the act she did not know o the nature and quality of the act she didn t know what she was doing or 2 The Irresistible Impulse Test Mental Disease most courts define it as psychosis mostly paranoia o that the act was wrong and schizophrenia Mental defect refers to mental retardation or brain damage severe enough to make it impossible to know what you re doing or if you know you don t know that it s wrong State v Odell 2004 o Odell murdered his father at the dinner table while there were guests over by shooting him in the chest o Got the gun out of his truck o Fled the crime scene right after it happened o Claimed insanity and that he did not know what was happening during this time o Did he know the nature and wrongfulness of his acts o Court said yes so appealed o Higher court found his psychiatric reviews to still not provide enough evidence for insanity affirmed trial courts ruling Bifurcated two stage trial a two phase trial in which the first phase determines whether the state has met its burden of proof and if so the second phase determines whether the defendant has sustained the burden of establishing a mental illness defense Irresistible impulse test we can t blame or deter people who because of a mental disease or defect know what they re doing is wrong but can t bring their actions into line with their knowledge of right and wrong Test o At the time of the crime was the defendant afflicted with a disease of the mind o If so did the defendant know right from wrong with respect to the act charged If not the law excuses the defendant o If the defendant did have such knowledge the law will still excuse him if two conditions occur If the mental disease caused the defendant to so far lose the power to choose between right and wrong and to avoid doing the alleged act that the disease destroyed his free will and If the mental disease was the sole cause of the act 3 The Product of Mental Illness Test Durham Rule Product of mental illness test also known as the Durham rule acts that are the products of mental disease or defect excuse criminal liability Durham rule acts that are the products of mental disease or defect excuse criminal liability 4 The Substantial Capacity Test Model Penal Code Test Substantial capacity test MPC test designed to remove the objections to the right wrong test its irresistible impulse supplement and the Durham rule The Defense of Diminished Capacity Diminished capacity an attempt to prove that the defendant incapable of the requisite intent of the crime charged is innocent of that crime but may well be guilty of a lesser one Diminished responsibility the defendant argues what I did was wrong but under the circumstances I m less responsible The Excuse of Age Under 7 Children had no criminal capacity Ages 7 14 Children were presumed to have no criminal capacity but the presumption could be overcome Over 14 Children had the same capacity as adults Waiver to adult criminal court meaning the juvenile court gives up its jurisdiction over the case and turns it over to the adult criminal court Judicial waiver when juvenile court judges use their discretion to transfer a juvenile to adult criminal court The seriousness of the defense Whether the offense was committed in an aggressive violent premeditated willful manner Whether the offense was against a person The amount of evidence against the juvenile The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile The prior record of the juvenile The threat the juvenile poses to public safety State v K R L 1992 KRL 8 was convicted of residential burglary appealed Went into his neighbors home took her goldfish and cut it up Then put her curling iron on wrapped in a towel Was he too young to have criminal intent Did the trial court err in concluding that K R L had the capacity to commit the crime of residential burglary Reversed The Defense of Duress do what they did Elements Nature of the threat death threat Defense of duress when defendants use the excuse that they were forced to Immediacy of the threats Crimes the defense applies to Level of belief regarding the threat The Defense of Intoxication Accountability Those who get drunk should take the consequences of their actions Someone who gets drunk is liable for the violent consequences Culpability Criminal Liability and punishment depend on blameworthiness Involuntary intoxication an excuse to criminal liability in all states it includes cases in which defendants don t know they re taking intoxicants or know but are forced to take them The Defense of Entrapment Entrapment excuse that argues government agents got people to commit crimes they wouldn t commit otherwise Subjective test of entrapment asks whether the intent to commit the crime originated with the defendant The