What Defense Can You Use What a D. A. Asks for a Ruling of Immunity From Perjury for a Witness
five.1 Criminal Defenses
Learning Objectives
- Distinguish between a denial or failure of proof defense and an affirmative defense.
- Distinguish between imperfect and perfect defenses.
- Distinguish between factual and legal defenses.
- Requite examples of factual and legal defenses.
- Distinguish between defenses based on justification and excuse.
A plethora of criminal defenses exist. Defenses may completely exonerate the criminal defendant, resulting in an acquittal, or reduce the severity of the offense. Affiliate three "Ramble Protections" discussed defenses based on the federal Constitution. This affiliate reviews the categorization of nonconstitutional criminal defenses, along with the elements of various defenses sanctioning the use of force.
Categorization of Defenses
Defenses can be categorized every bit deprival or failure of proof, affirmative, imperfect, or perfect. Defenses tin can also be categorized as factual, legal, based on justification, or alibi. Lastly, defenses can be created by a court (common law), or created by a state or federal legislature (statutory).
Definition of Denial or Failure of Proof and Affirmative Defenses
Equally stated in Chapter 2 "The Legal System in the The states", a criminal defendant will be acquitted if the prosecution cannot prove every chemical element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In certain cases, the defendant can either deny that a criminal element(due south) exists or simply sit down back and expect for the prosecution to fail in meeting its burden of proof. This legal strategy is sometimes referred to as either a denial or failure of proof defense.
An affirmative defense is not connected to the prosecution'due south burden of proof. When the defendant asserts an affirmative defence, the defendant raises a new upshot that must be proven to a certain evidentiary standard. State statutes frequently specify whether a defence is affirmative. The Model Penal Code defines an affirmative defense force as a defence that is accounted 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 Lawmaking § 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 entreatment.
Example of an Affirmative Defense
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 he did non bear on Juan; someone else battered him. Jasmine claims that she did not batter Juan because she was legally defending herself against Juan'southward assault. Jerome's claim focuses on the elements of battery and asserts that these elements cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Technically, Jerome can practise zippo and exist acquitted if the prosecution fails to show that he was the criminal actor. Jasmine's self-defense claim is an affirmative defense. Jasmine must do something to be acquitted: she must prove that Juan attacked her to a sure evidentiary standard.
Figure 5.ane Denial and Affirmative Defenses
| Deprival/Failure of Proof | |
|---|---|
| Affirmative |
Burden of Proof for Affirmative Defenses
As stated in Affiliate 2 "The Legal Arrangement in the Us", states vary as to their requirements for the defendant's burden of proof when asserting an affirmative defence force (Findlaw.com, 2010). Different defenses also accept different burdens of proof. Some states require the defendant to meet the burden of product, but crave the prosecution to thereafter meet the burden of persuasion, disproving the defense to a preponderance of evidence, or in some states, beyond a reasonable incertitude. Other states require the defendant to run across the brunt of production and the burden of persuasion. In such states, the defendant's evidentiary standard is preponderance of evidence, not across a reasonable dubiousness. In the example given in Section five "Example of an Affirmative Defense force", for Jasmine's self-defense merits, Jasmine must testify she was defending herself past meeting either the brunt of production or the burden of production and persuasion to a preponderance of evidence, depending on the jurisdiction.
Figure 5.2 Diagram of the Criminal Brunt of Proof
Definition of Imperfect and Perfect Defenses
Every bit stated previously, a defence can reduce the severity of the criminal offense, or completely exonerate the defendant from criminal responsibleness. If a defense reduces the severity of the offense, it is called an imperfect defense. If a defense results in an acquittal, it is called a perfect defense. The difference between the 2 is meaning. A defendant who is successful with an imperfect defense is still guilty of a crime; a defendant who is successful with a perfect defense is innocent.
Example of Imperfect and Perfect Defenses
LuLu flies into a rage and kills her sister Lola afterward she catches Lola sleeping with her fiancé. LuLu is thereafter charged with starting time-degree murder. LuLu decides to pursue two defenses. First, LuLu claims that the killing should be manslaughter rather than first-degree murder considering she honestly just unreasonably believed Lola was going to assail her, so she idea she was acting in self-defense. Second, LuLu claims she was insane at the fourth dimension the killing occurred. The merits of manslaughter is an imperfect defense that volition reduce LuLu'southward sentence, but will not deport her of criminal homicide. The merits of insanity is a perfect defense that will issue in an acquittal.
Definition of Factual and Legal Defenses
A defense must be based on specific grounds. If a defense is based on an result of fact, it is a factual defense force. If a defense is based on an outcome of law, it is a legal defense.
Example of Factual and Legal Defenses
Armando is charged with the break-in of Roman'southward residence. Armando decides to pursue two defenses. First, Armando claims that he was with Phil on the engagement and fourth dimension of the burglary. This is called an alibi defense. Second, Armando claims that it is too belatedly to prosecute him for burglary because of the expiration of the statute of limitations. Armando's alibi defence force is a factual defense; it is based on the fact that Armando could not accept committed the burglary because he was somewhere else at the time it occurred. Armando'due south statute of limitations defence force is a legal defense because information technology is based on a statute that limits the amount of time the government has to prosecute Armando for burglary.
Definition of Justification and Alibi
With the exception of alibi, most affirmative defenses are based on either justification or excuse. Typically, justification and excuse defenses admit that the defendant committed the criminal act with the requisite intent, merely insist that the conduct should non exist criminal.
A defense based on justification focuses on the offense. A justification defence claims that the accused'due south conduct should be legal rather than criminal because it supports a principle valued by society. A defence based on excuse focuses on the defendant. An excuse defense claims that fifty-fifty though the accused committed the criminal act with criminal intent, the defendant should not be responsible for his or her behavior.
Example of Justification and Excuse
Review the examples of affirmative, imperfect, and perfect defenses given in Section 5.1.1 "Categorization of Defenses". Jasmine'southward cocky-defense claim is based on justification. Guild believes that individuals should exist able to protect themselves from harm, then actions taken in cocky-defense are justified and noncriminal. Notation that a cocky-defense force merits focuses on the offense (battery) in light of the circumstances (to prevent imminent harm). LuLu's insanity claim is based on excuse. Although LuLu killed Lola with criminal intent, if LuLu is truly insane it is not exist fair or simply to punish her for her behavior. Annotation that an insanity merits focuses on the defendant (a legally insane individual) and whether he or she should be criminally responsible for his or her deport.
Table 5.ane Categorization of Defenses
| Defense force Type | Characteristics |
|---|---|
| Mutual-law | Created by a court |
| Statutory | Created by a state or federal legislature |
| Denial or failure of proof | Creates dubiousness in one or more elements of the offense and prevents the prosecution from meeting its burden of proof |
| Affirmative | Raises an issue separate from the elements of the crime |
| Imperfect | Reduces the severity of the offense |
| Perfect | Results in an acquittal |
| Factual | Based on an result of fact |
| Legal | Based on an consequence of law |
| Alibi | Asserts that the defendant was somewhere else when the criminal offence was committed |
| Expiration of the statute of limitations | Asserts that information technology is too tardily for the government to prosecute the defendant for the criminal offense |
| Justification | Claims that the criminal comport is justified under the circumstances |
| Excuse | Claims that the defendant should exist excused for his or her conduct |
Central Takeaways
- A denial or failure of proof defence 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 result for entreatment.
- An imperfect defense reduces the severity of the offense; a perfect defense results in an acquittal.
- If the basis for a defense is an event of fact, it is called a factual defense force. If the basis for a defense is an issue of law, it is called a legal defense.
- An case of a factual defense is an excuse defense, which asserts that the defendant could not have committed the offense considering he or she was somewhere else when the crime occurred. An example of a legal defense force is a claim that the statute of limitations has expired, which asserts that it is too late for the regime to prosecute the defendant for the crime.
- An affirmative defence force is based on justification when information technology 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 comport.
Exercises
Answer the post-obit questions. Check your answers using the respond fundamental at the end of the chapter.
- Carol is on trial for battery, a general intent crime. Carol puts on a defense that proves her conduct was accidental, not intentional. Is this an affirmative defense? Why or why not?
- Read State v. Burkhart, 565 S.East.2d 298 (2002). In Burkhart, the defendant was convicted of three counts of murder. The defendant claimed he acted in self-defense. The jury instruction given during the accused's trial stated that the prosecution had the burden of disproving self-defence force. Nonetheless, the education did not state that the prosecution'south burden of disproving self-defense was across a reasonable doubt. Did the Supreme Court of Due south Carolina uphold the defendant's confidence for the murders? The case is available at this link: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1066148868024499763&hl=en&as_sdt=ii&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr.
- Read Hoagland five. State, 240 P.3d 1043 (2010). In Hoagland, the accused wanted to assert a necessity defence to the crime of driving while under the influence. The Nevada Legislature had never addressed or mentioned a necessity defence force. Did the Supreme Court of Nevada allow the defendant to present the necessity defense? The case is available at this link: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?instance=8002120339805439441&q= Hoagland+v.+Country&hl=en&as_sdt=2,v&as_ylo=2009.
References
Findlaw.com, "The Insanity Defense among united states," findlaw.com website, accessed October xi, 2010, http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/insanity-defense/the-insanity-defense-amidst-the-states.html.
borellabectin1956.blogspot.com
Source: https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/5-1-criminal-defenses/
0 Response to "What Defense Can You Use What a D. A. Asks for a Ruling of Immunity From Perjury for a Witness"
Post a Comment