EXCUSE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL LAW

EXCUSE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL LAW - EXCUSE DEFENSES IN...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
EXCUSE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL LAW V. Excuse Defenses Excuse defenses - assert defendant not responsible for his/her wrong actions A. Insanity Insanity in criminal law - a legal , not medical, concept Rests on basic principle of criminal law - must have both actus reus (voluntary act) and mens rea (guilty mind) - if mentally unable to form mens rea or if action not voluntary act (in legal meaning), then not criminally liable Four tests - varying degrees of application M = Naghten or A right-wrong @ test Irresistible impulse test Durham A product @ test Substantial capacity test Two major tests used - right-wrong test and substantial capacity test 1. M = Naghten or right-wrong test - elements of defense - two pronged - defendant suffered from mental disease or defect that - at time of act caused defendant NOT to know - nature and quality of act (delusional - twisting neck of chicken when actually choking person, OR - that the act was wrong Viewed as a test of lack of A cognition @ Meaning of controversy about A wrong @ (merely that prohibited vs that morally wrong) and A know @ (mere intellectual awareness vs appreciates or understands) M = Naghten case - Queen = s Bench articulated rule to House of Lords - M = Naghten had killed Prime Minister = s secretary - delusional and, therefore, not culpable 2. Irresistible impulse test addresses volition (free will) concern i.e., that because of mental disease or defect, unable to control actions/conduct to conform to what required Applied as supplement to M = Naghten test in some jurisdictions
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
3. Durham product test - insanity defense applies where def. = s actions the product of , caused by, the mental disease or defect - very broad; only used in New Hampshire If view as a causation issue - harm caused by disease, not the personal act Seen as incorporating modern psychological views - i.e., largely adopts medical definition as legal definition But even New Hampshire courts where originated (then adopted in D.C. in Durham v. United States) have restricted meaning - Tends to be where complete loss of self-control Only still used in New Hampshire - as modified 4. Model Penal Code = s A substantial capacity @ test Not responsible for criminal conduct where - as result of mental disease or defect - lacks substantial capacity to either - appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of conduct 0R - to conform conduct to requirements of law State v. Quintet - Conn. case - applies substantial capacity test Note - insanity an affirmative defense - burden of proof on defendant by preponderance of evidence that lacked substantial capacity
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/23/2008 for the course CJ 102 taught by Professor Morris during the Spring '08 term at New Haven.

Page1 / 7

EXCUSE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL LAW - EXCUSE DEFENSES IN...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online