What Are The Types Of Criminal Defenses?

When someone goes to court because they’re accused of breaking the law, they need a strong plan to show they didn’t do it or had a good reason. This plan is called a defense.

People say, “It wasn’t me,” or “I had to do it to protect myself.” Knowing the types of criminal defenses helps us understand how people can argue their cases. But what are the types of criminal defenses?

Understanding these defenses provides insight into the complexities of legal strategies and the justice system. Let’s explore this fascinating area and learn how individuals navigate legal challenges.

Affirmative Defenses

Affirmative defenses are a key part of the legal world. They are ways people can defend themselves in court by bringing up new facts.

Introduction To Concept

In a lawsuit, the plaintiff has the burden of proving their case. This means they must present evidence supporting each element of their claim. However, the defendant has options beyond simply denying the plaintiff’s allegations.

An affirmative defense is a legal argument. The defendant raises it to say that the defendant should not be held liable even if the plaintiff’s claims are true. Many types of defenses are affirmative. They can apply in civil and criminal cases. Some common examples include:

Statute of limitations: This defense argues that the plaintiff waited too long to file their lawsuit.
Contributory negligence: This defense argues that the plaintiff’s actions contributed to their injury.
Self-defense: This defense argues that the defendant used force only to protect themselves from harm.
Impossibility of performance: This defense argues that the defendants couldn’t meet their contract obligations.

Burden Of Proof Shift

When a defendant raises an affirmative defense, the burden of proof typically shifts. This means that the defendant can now present evidence to support their defense.

However, the standard of proof for an affirmative defense is usually lower—lower than the standard of proof for the plaintiff’s case. In most civil cases, the defendant only needs to prove their defense.

They must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. This means it’s more likely than not that their defense is true.

Insanity Defense

The insanity defense is a legal argument used by defendants who claim that they were not aware of the difference between right and wrong due to mental illness at the time they committed a crime.

Mental State Examination

A critical step in mounting an insanity defense is the mental state examination. This involves mental health professionals. They are usually psychiatrists or psychologists. They thoroughly evaluate the defendant. The examination typically includes:

In-depth interviews: The professionals will interview the defendant. They aim to understand the defendant’s thoughts, behaviors, and mental history.
Review of medical records: Past medical records can help. They include hospital stays and treatment plans. They can give insight into the defendant’s mental health.
Psychological testing: The tests are standardized and can help assess the defendant’s thinking abilities and diagnose mental disorders.

The evaluation is comprehensive. Based on it, the professional will offer an opinion. They will say if the defendant was mentally ill at the time of the crime. This opinion will be crucial evidence for the defense attorney.

Legal Criteria And Standards

Not every mental illness qualifies for an insanity defense. Each jurisdiction has its legal criteria and standards that must be met. There are 2 main legal tests used to determine criminal insanity:

The M’Naghten Rule: This is the oldest and most widely used test. It asks if the defendant knew the nature and quality of the act when they did it. Or if they knew that it was wrong.
The Model Penal Code Test: This modern test focuses on whether the defendant has a mental disease or defect. It asks if they cannot see the criminality of their conduct or if they should follow the law.

The burden of proof for the insanity defense usually falls on the defendant. This means the defendant must present evidence. The evidence must prove that the defendant is insane, and it must do so by a preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not.

Self-Defense

Self-defense is a legal justification. It lets people use force to protect themselves from harm. It’s a complex concept with specific requirements that vary depending on jurisdiction. Here’s a breakdown of 2 key elements of self-defense:

Justification For Force

For force to be justified in self-defense, there must be a credible threat of imminent harm. This means:

Imminent: The threat of harm must be about to happen, not a future possibility.
Credible: A reasonable person in the same situation would believe they are in danger of serious bodily injury or death.

The justification for force also extends to protecting others from imminent harm. However, some jurisdictions may have limitations on using deadly force in defense of others.

Reasonable Belief Requirement

This point emphasizes that a person’s belief in the need for self-defense must be reasonable. It can’t be based on only personal fear or paranoia. Here’s what it entails:

Objective Standard: The law doesn’t consider an individual’s unique anxieties or past experiences. The question is whether a reasonable person in the same situation would believe they needed to use force to defend themselves.
Mistake of Fact: Force can still be justified even if the threat is a misunderstanding. This is true if the belief in danger was reasonable based on available information.

It’s important To remember:

Duty to Retreat (in some jurisdictions): In some areas, a person facing a threat may have a duty to retreat if it’s safe to do so before using force.
Proportionality of Force: The force used in self-defense should be proportional to the threat. Deadly force can only be justified against a deadly threat.

Stand Your Ground Laws

These laws allow individuals to use force in self-defense without the duty to retreat first, under certain conditions. Typically, this applies when the individual is in a place where they have a right to be and are not engaged in illegal activities.

Stand Your Ground laws vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another, so the exact conditions and protections they provide can differ widely.

Duress And Coercion

Duress and coercion are two sides of the same coin. Both refer to situations where someone is pressured into acting against their will. This section will delve into how they function as a defense in legal situations.

Forced Actions Defense

Duress and coercion can be defenses in criminal law. They allow defendants to argue that they were not willing to commit a crime. The key idea is that immediate threats of harm compelled the defendant’s actions. The threats were to themselves or someone close to them.

Here’s what’s required for a successful forced actions defense:

Threat of Harm: The defendant must have faced a threat of serious bodily injury or death. Threats of property damage or financial harm typically wouldn’t qualify.
Immediacy: The threat was imminent. It would have happened at once if the defendant didn’t comply.
Reasonable Person Standard: The threat must be like self-defense. A reasonable person in the defendant’s situation must see it as credible. Fear alone isn’t enough.
No Reasonable Escape: The defendant couldn’t have escaped the threat without resorting to the criminal act.

Immediate Threat Requirement

A crucial aspect of the forced action defense is the immediacy of the threat. The defendant must have believed they had no choice. They had to comply with the coercer’s demands to avoid instant harm. Threats of future harm, even if serious, wouldn’t typically qualify for this defense.

Legal Considerations

Duress and coercion defenses are complex and difficult to prove in court. Here are some additional factors to consider:

Nature of the Crime: This defense is less likely to succeed for serious crimes like murder.
Evidence of Coercion: The defendant must provide evidence supporting their claim of being coerced.
Voluntarily Entering the Situation: The defendants knowingly put themselves in a risky situation. They can be coerced. So, the defense may be weakened.

Necessity Defense

The necessity defense allows defendants to argue that their illegal act was justified. It was necessary to avoid greater harm. This defense applies when someone breaks the law to prevent more serious harm to themselves or others.

Acting Out Of Necessity

To successfully claim necessity, a defendant must demonstrate several key elements:

Imminent Harm: There must be a real and soon threat. It must threaten serious injury, death, or big property loss.
Lesser of Two Evils: The illegal act committed must have been the only reasonable way to avoid the greater harm. There should be no legal alternative available.
Harm Avoided Outweighs Harm Caused: The harm caused by the illegal act must be significantly less than the harm avoided.

Here are some classic examples of the necessity defense:

Stealing food or medicine to survive a dire situation.
Damaging property to escape a burning building.
Disobeying a minor traffic law to rush an injured person to the hospital.

Imminent Harm Requirement

The necessity defense is like duress and coercion. It hinges on the immediacy of the threat. The harm avoided must be about to happen, not a potential future threat. For instance, breaking into a neighbor’s house wouldn’t qualify for this defense. It is to avoid a future storm.

Legal And Ethical Implications

The necessity defense is a complex legal concept with both legal and ethical considerations:

Legal Challenges: The defendant has the burden of proof to establish all elements of the necessity defense. Success can be difficult, and judges may have discretion in applying the law.
Ethical Considerations: While the law may excuse the illegal act, there may still be ethical questions about the defendant’s choices. Was there truly no other option? Could the consequences have been different?

Consent As A Defense

Consent is a defense that states the person who was supposedly harmed or wronged agreed to the actions that took place. This defense is often used in cases involving bodily harm or property damage.

Agreement As A Defense

Consent acts as a defense. It removes a key part of many crimes: the victim’s unwillingness. For instance, in assault and battery cases, touching itself isn’t a crime. It’s the unwanted touching that constitutes the crime. When the victim consents to being touched, the assault wouldn’t be illegal.

Here’s where things get more nuanced:

Specific Consent: Consent must be specific to the act in question. Consenting to one type of touch wouldn’t extend automatically to a different, more intrusive one.
Ongoing Consent: Consent can be withdrawn at any time. What was initially consensual can become criminal if the victim no longer agrees to the act.

Validity And Boundaries

For consent to be a valid defense, it must meet specific criteria:

Freely Given: Consent cannot be obtained through force, threats, intimidation, or fraud. The victim must have a genuine choice.
Competency: The person giving consent must be mentally competent. They must also be of legal age to understand the nature of their consent. Consent from a minor or someone intoxicated may not be considered valid.

Legal Challenges And Nuances

Consent as a defense presents several challenges in legal proceedings:

Burden of Proof: In some jurisdictions, the defendant may be required to prove the victim’s consent.
Misunderstandings of Consent: Misunderstandings about consent can occur. This is especially true with alcohol or drugs.
Public Policy Limitations: Consent cannot be used to defend acts that violate public policy or good morals. For example, consent wouldn’t be a defense for murder. Nor for certain types of harmful sex.

Mistaken Identity

Mistaken identity is a serious issue in criminal justice. Someone is wrongly identified as the perpetrator of a crime. This section will explore how mistaken identity can be used as a defense. It will cover the evidence supporting it.

Wrongful Accusation Defense

Mistaken identity can be a powerful defense against criminal charges. When a defendant can convince the court that they were not the one who committed the crime, they can be acquitted. Here’s how it works:

Challenging Eyewitness Identification: Eyewitness identification is often the main evidence in criminal cases. But, it can be unreliable. This is due to stress, poor lighting, or suggestive police procedures. The defense can highlight these weaknesses and doubt the witness’s accuracy.
Offering Alternative Explanations: The defense may present evidence suggesting someone else did the crime. They may also present evidence that the defendant has a plausible alibi.

Alibi Evidence And Witnesses

Alibi evidence is crucial in a mistaken identity defense. An alibi shows that the defendant was elsewhere when the crime happened. It proves they could not have done it. This evidence can come in various forms:

Witness Testimony: Friends, family, or colleagues can confirm the defendant’s whereabouts at the time of the crime.
Documentation: Business records, receipts, or travel documents can support an alibi.

DNA And Forensic Considerations

Forensic evidence, like DNA, can be pivotal in cases of mistaken identity. This evidence can show if the accused was at the crime scene. Science advances have led to the freeing of many wrongfully convicted people.

They were convicted based on mistaken identity. This evidence strongly supports the defense. It does so by disproving claims based on mistaken identification.

Intoxication Defense

Intoxication can be a defense strategy in criminal cases, but its effectiveness depends on the type and level of intoxication. Here’s a breakdown of key aspects:

Voluntary Vs. Involuntary

In legal terms, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary actions, especially regarding intoxication, can significantly impact the outcome of a case.

Aspect	Voluntary	Involuntary
Definition	Actions or consumption of substances done by choice.	Actions or consumption of substances without one’s consent or knowledge.
Legal Impact	Rarely mitigates legal responsibility; may impact the severity of the charge in specific contexts.	It can be a complete defense if it leads to incapacity or undermines intent.
Examples	Choosing to drink alcohol or use drugs.	Being drugged without knowledge or under duress.
Intent	Generally does not negate criminal intent.	It may negate criminal intent if it impairs the ability to understand or control actions.
Defense Usage	Limited in criminal cases; may affect charges related to specific intent.	Potentially strong defense if it can be proved that actions were beyond control.

Impact On Criminal Intent

Many crimes require a specific mental state, known as “mens rea,” for conviction. Intoxication can negate mens rea. This is if it can be proven that the defendant was too intoxicated to form the intent.

Specific Intent Crimes: For crimes requiring intent, like premeditated murder, severe intoxication can be a defense. It can prevent forming that specific intent.
General Intent Crimes: Being drunk is usually not a defense for crimes. This is true for crimes needing only general intent, like assault.

Legal Limitations And Outcomes

The legal weight of the intoxication defense varies by jurisdiction. Here are some limitations to consider:

Limited Defense: Even in cases of involuntary intoxication, it is hard to prove the defense. It may not result in a full acquittal.
Reduced Charges: Intoxication leads to lesser charges. It also causes a reduced sentence. It all depends on the circumstances.
Judicial Discretion: Judges have some discretion in considering intoxication as a defense.

FAQs

1. Is Mistaken Identity A Strong Defense?

Mistaken identity can be a strong defense in criminal cases if supported by solid evidence. It challenges the prosecution’s claim by proving the accused was not at the crime scene. The successful defense often relies on alibis, witness testimony, and visual evidence such as surveillance footage.

2. Can Any Crime Be Justified By Affirmative Defenses?

Not all crimes can be justified by affirmative defenses, but certain circumstances like self-defense, duress, or insanity can lead to a not-guilty verdict. These defenses must be proven in court and depend on the case’s specifics and applicable laws. Understanding local legal standards is crucial.

3. Does Intoxication Always Excuse Actions?

Intoxication does not always excuse actions in the eyes of the law. While some legal systems may consider it as a factor in determining intent or culpability, it generally does not absolve one of responsibility. Each case is unique, but being under the influence often complicates legal defenses.

Conclusion

Remember, everyone has the right to defend themselves in court. There are many ways to do this. You can say you didn’t do it, someone made you do it, or you had a good reason for doing it. Understanding these defenses helps you see how the legal system works.

It shows how people can explain their side of the story. So, if you ever need to know more about defending yourself or someone else, contact the attorneys at Leverson Budke, P.A. to schedule a free consultation.