1. Chapter 8
Justifications

2. Chapter Summary Affirmative Defenses Mitigating Circumstances
Self-Defense
Defense of Others
Defense of Home
Execution of Public Duties
Resisting Unlawful Arrest
Necessity
Consent
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

3. Introduction
Prosecutors must overcome the presumption of innocence of the defendant and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, defendants can present defenses, which justifies or excuses their acts.
When putting an affirmative defenses forward, the burden of production and persuasion are moved to the defense.
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

4. Affirmative Defenses Justification Defenses Excuse Defenses
make the case that otherwise criminal acts are approved of and encouraged by society given the circumstances
Excuse Defenses
make the case that the act does deserve condemnation but the defendant should not be held liable due to a personal disability
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

5. Affirmative Defenses at Common Law
At common law, successful justification defenses resulted in acquittals
At common law, successful excuse defenses provided the defendant the opportunity to request that the king exempt them from the death penalty
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

6. Theories for the Justification Defense
Moral Interest
Superior Interest
Public Benefit
Moral Forfeiture
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

7. Affirmative Defenses at Common Law, cont.
A perfect affirmative defense satisfies every necessary element of the defense.
An imperfect affirmative defense satisfies only some of the necessary elements.
Imperfect defenses serve as mitigating circumstances during sentencing.
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

8. Mitigating Circumstances
Some evidence is not relevant for affirmative defenses.
This evidence may be used, however, at sentencing to reduce the defendant’s punishment.
good-motive defense
If mitigating circumstances are overwhelming, a defense attorney may push for the jury to acquit anyway by means of “jury nullification.”
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

9. Self-Defense Vigilante justice is discouraged.
However, self-defense (of an innocent victim) is a legitimate defense.
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

10. Seven Elements of Self-Defense
Individual most posses a reasonable belief that force is required to defend self
Defender must reasonably believe that force is required to prevent the imminent and unlawful infliction of death or serious bodily harm
Force employed must not be excessive
Deadly force may not be used in a defender can safely and reasonably retreat
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

11. Seven Elements of Self-Defense, cont.
An aggressor (usually) cannot claim self-defense if the original victim fights back
If the belief of the need of force is mistaken, self-defense can still be used if the belief was reasonable
If a person honestly, yet unreasonably believes that a situation calls for lethal self-defense the defender will be held liable for manslaughter, not murder
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

12. Two Standards for Self-Defense
Subjective
defendant must demonstrate an honest belief that he or she confronted an imminent attack
Objective
defendant must demonstrate that a reasonable person under the same circumstances would have believed that he or she confronted an imminent attack
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

13. Reasonable Belief of Self-Defense
Defendant must reasonably believe that the threatened harm is imminent
the law encourages peaceful resolutions to conflict whenever possible
self-defense should be a last resort
need for self-defense should be genuine and proportionate to the threatened harm
When acting in self-defense, individuals cannot use excessive force.
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

14. The Castle Doctrine
Very few jurisdictions require the defender to retreat.
The castle doctrine holds that individuals need not retreat inside their own home.
Aggressors employing non-deadly force must clearly abandon the struggle and withdraw in good faith to be able to claim self-defense.
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

15. Legal Equation
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

16. Defense of Others
Allowed at common law to defend spouse, family, employees, and employers
Originally. U.S. used the alter ego rule.
Model Penal Code
objective test for intervention in defense of others
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

17. Defense of Home
At common law, lethal force was allowed when it was reasonably believed to be required to prevent an imminent and unlawful entry.
States typically allow lethal force when it is reasonably believed that the intruder intends to commit a felony within the dwelling.
Some states have “make my day laws”
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

18. Execution of Public Duties
Law enforcement officials must frequently engage in activities that would be illegal for ordinary citizens.
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

19. Legal Equation
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

20. Resisting Unlawful Arrest
At common law, individuals could use any degree of force to resist so long as it did not lead to the death of the arresting officer.
Most states hold that illegal arrest can be resisted with no more force than is absolutely necessary.
Some states use the English rule instead of the above.
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

21. Legal Equation
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

22. Necessity
Conduct otherwise criminal is justified when undertaken to prevent a greater harm.
“Choice of Evils” defense
Evaluated on a case-by-case basis
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

23. Legal Equation
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

24. Controversy of Necessity
People should obey the law whenever possible
People may make the wrong choice of evils
Has been used in political causes
Is rarely properly argued, yet frequently attempted
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

25. Controversy of Necessity, cont.
Harm to be avoided must be immediate and imminent.
Defendant must not have been substantially responsible for the creation of the emergency.
Harm chosen must be the lesser of the two.
No legal alternatives must exist to avoid the harm.
The criminal statute violated must not preclude the necessity defense.
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

26. Consent Typically, consent from a victim is not a defense. Exceptions
incidental contact
contact resulting from sporting events
socially beneficial activity
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

27. Consent, cont. When it is a valid defense
person giving it must have legal capacity
must not have been tricked by fraud or deceit
must have given permission before the event
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition

28. Legal Equation
Lippman, Contemporary Criminal Law, Second Edition