Download Criminal Defenses: Self-Defense, Justification, Affirmative, and Excuse Defenses and more Quizzes Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity!
TERM 1
criminal conduct
DEFINITION 1 acts triggered by criminal intent(a criminal act and criminal intent) is necessary to hold individuals accountable for the crimes they commit. pages 135- TERM 2
justification defenses
DEFINITION 2 defendants admit they were responsible for their acts but claim what they did was right(justified) under circumstances.The classic justification is self-defense; kill or be killed. Even if the government proves all the elements in the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks because they are not blameworthy. pages 135- TERM 3
affirmative defenses
DEFINITION 3 A defendant offers an affirmative defense when responding to a plaintiff's claim in common law jurisdictions, or, more familiarly, in criminal law. (most justifications and excuses are affirmative defenses.) pages 135- TERM 4
excuse defense
DEFINITION 4 defendant admit what they did was wrong but claim that under circumstances; they weren't responsible for whatthey did. The classic excuse is insanity.pages 135- TERM 5
burden of production
DEFINITION 5 The burden of proof is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. pages 135-
TERM 6
burden of persuasion
DEFINITION 6 Means that they have to prove their defense by a preponderance of the evidence, defined as 50%. In other jurisdictions, once defendants meet the burden of production, the burden shifts to the government to prove defendants weren't justified or excused.pages 135- TERM 7
perfect defenses
DEFINITION 7 Most defenses are perfect defenses, if they are successful, defendants areacquitted,there's one major exception, defendants who successfully plead the excuse of insanity don'twalk- at least not right away.pages 135- TERM 8
imperfect defense
DEFINITION 8 evidence that doesn't amount to a perfect defense might amount to an imperfect defense; that is; defendants are guilty of lesser offenses.pages 135- TERM 9
self-defense
DEFINITION 9 A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self- defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. pages 137- TERM 10
elements of self-defense
DEFINITION 10 unprovoked attack- the defendant didn't start or provoke the attack. Necessity - defenders can use deadly force only if it's necessary to repel an imminent deadly attack, namely one that;s going to happen right now. proportionality - defenders can use deadly force only if the use of nondeadly force isn't enough,namely excessive force is not allowed. reasonable belief the defender has to reasonably believe that it's necessary to use deadly force to repel the imminent deadly attack. pages 138-
