STREET LAW

UNIT 2: Criminal Law & Juvenile Justice

Chapter 11

Defenses

For a conviction to occur in a criminal case, two requirements must be metThe prosecutor must establish beyond a

reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the act in question

and that the defendant committed the act with the required intent

The defendant does not have to present a defense

He or she can simply force the government (the prosecutor) to prove its case

However, several defenses are available to defendants in criminal casesFor example, sometimes a criminal act may be

considered excusable or justifiable○ Defenses in this category include self-defense,

defense of property, & defense of others

O.J. Simpson Case

One of the most publicized criminal cases in recent years was the murder trial of former football star O.J. Simpson, in which he claimed he wasn’t guilty in the killings of his ex-wife & her friend

By focusing the defense on improper police behavior & investigation techniques, his legal team convinced a jury there was reasonable doubt as to his guilt

He was found not guilty on all counts In a civil case for wrongful death brought by

the surviving family members, a jury found that a preponderance of the evidence went against Simpson

He was found liable & ordered to pay compensatory & punitive damages to the families of the two victims

The idea behind the two different standards is that the penalty in criminal cases is much more seriouscriminal record, imprisonment, & possible death sentence

Criminal penalties involve infringement on an individual’s liberty (and possibly life) in contrast to the lesser penalty in civil cases, which is usually only monetary damages

DEFENSE DEFINITIONS

Handout: Ch. 11 – Basic Concepts

Alibievidence that the defendant was elsewhere at the time of the crime

Defense of OthersRight to use reasonable force to defend other people

Defense of PropertyRight to use reasonable force to defend property

DuressActing as a result of coercion or a threat of immediate danger to life or personal safety

Elements of the crime were not all presentOne of the required elements (identified in the RCW’s) of the crime is missing

EntrapmentEvidence that defendant would not have committed the crime if not for the inducement of a police officer

InfancyChildren under certain ages are incapable of committing a crime

Intoxicationbeing under the influence of drugs or alcohol to the extent that the defendant could not form the specific intent to commit the crime; applicable only in specific intent crimes

InsanityDue to a mental illness or defect, defendants did not know what they were doing or did not know the difference between right and wrong. In other states, defendants lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the nature of the crime or to confirm their conduct to the requirements of the law

Lack of Criminal IntentGuilty mind required for the crime is missing

Mistake in IdentityDefendant was incorrectly identified as the perpetrator

NecessityThe defendant is compelled to react to an unavoidable situation in order to protect life

Self-DefenseReasonable amount of force to protect oneself

DEFENSE CATEGORIES:

No crime has been committed Defendant did not commit the crime Defendant committed a criminal act, but the

act was excusable or justifiable Defendant committed a criminal act but is not

criminally responsible for his or her actions

Fill out bottom of Basic Concepts Handout

No Crime Has Been Committed   The defendant may decide to try to prove that

(1) no crime was committed, or

(2) there was no criminal intent because the act was simply committed by mistake

Answers:#5 – Elements of the crime were not all present#10 – Lack of criminal intent

Defendant Did Not Commit the Crime   When there is confusion or doubt about who committed

a crime, the defendant may try to prove that there has been a case of mistaken identity & that he or she was not the person responsible for the crimeToday, DNA testing can sometimes be used to prove whether

or not the defendant was responsible In recent years, some people convicted of crimes have been

able to prove their innocence because of this testing

Answers:#1 – Alibi#11 – Mistake in identity

Defendant Committed a Criminal Act, but the Act Was Excusable or Justifiable   Sometimes a criminal act may be considered

excusable or justifiable This type of defense includes (13) self-

defense & defense of (3) property & (2) othersThe law allows people to use deadly force when

their own or someone else's life is in dangerThe law also permits people to use reasonable

force to protect themselves, their property, & others from harm

Bernhard Goetz—Self-Defense

One famous case of self-defense involved a man named Bernhard Goetz, who shot four teens in what he claimed was self-defense while riding on a New York City subway train

Goetz had been mugged & robbed of electronic equipment on a subway train a few years earlier

He feared it would happen again, especially in his neighborhood, which was frequented by drug addicts & other criminals

Therefore, Goetz applied for a license to carry a gun to protect himself

He was denied permission but obtained a gun anyway

One day he was surrounded in a subway car by four youths who first asked him for “the time,” then “a match,” & then “five dollars to play video games”

Goetz replied, “I’ll give you each five dollars,” & pulled a .38 revolver from his pocket & shot all four youths

Evidence showed that he shot one in the back as he lay on the floor

Goetz ran from the train & escaped but was later arrested

All four youths were seriously hurt & one was permanently paralyzed

Three carried sharpened screwdrivers in their pockets at the time of the shooting that they may have used to pry open video game machines to obtain quarters

If Goetz were tried for assault, what would he have to establish to prove self-defense?

Based on the facts, do you believe this was a case of self-defense?

Should the teenagers be charged? If so, with what crime?

Should citizens be allowed to carry guns & use them in self-defense?

Was Goetz guilty of a crime? If so, what crime? If convicted, what penalties, if any, do

you think he should face?

Goetz was eventually acquitted for attempted murder & assault

He was found guilty of illegal possession of a deadly weapon & reckless endangerment, & spent time in prison

Defendant Committed a Criminal Act but Is Not Criminally Responsible for His or Her Actions 

In this type of defense, the defendant acknowledges that he or she committed the act but argues that there are reasons the law should not consider the defendant criminally responsibleThe law recognizes several reasons that may excuse

a defendant from criminal responsibilityThese defenses include (7) infancy, (8) intoxication, (9)

insanity, (6) entrapment, (4) duress, & (12) necessity

Infancy Defense

The idea behind the infancy defense is similar to the insanity defense: People should not be convicted or punished if they do not know right from wrongIf a three-year old child plays with matches, starts a

fire, & the house burns down, is it arson?What if the child were eight years old?Eleven years old?Sixteen years old?Would your answers differ if kids of the same age were

fighting & one shot the other?

Intoxication

Defendants claim that at the time of the crime they were so drunk or high on drugs that they did not know what they were doingVoluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crimeHowever, it may be a valid defense if the crime

requires proof of a specific mental state

Example: Grady is charged with assault with intent to killHe claims he was drunk If he can prove that he was so drunk that he could not have

formed the intent to kill, his intoxication might be a valid defense

Grady can still be convicted of the crime of assault, because specific intent is not required to prove that crime

However, if Grady had decided to kill the victim before he got drunk or if he got drunk to get up enough nerve to commit the crime, the intoxication would not be a defense

This is because the required mental state (the intent to kill) existed before the drunkenness

Insanity Defense

The basic concept is that people who have a mental disease or disorder should not be convicted if they do not know what they are doing or if they do not know the difference between right & wrong

There is a difference between not guilty by reason of insanity (used by most states & the federal government) & not competent to stand trial that exists in some states

The accused’s mental state can be an issue in determining whetherThe defendant is competent to stand trialThe defendant was sane at the time of the criminal

act, &The defendant is sane after the trial

The insanity defense applies only if the accused was insane at the time of the crime

How & when may a state determine that person found not guilty by reason of insanity should reenter society?

Who should make that decision?