In the situation, the conduct was the correct behavior that society encourages or at least tolerates. Therefore, there is no degree of blameworthiness in the conduct (self-defense, etc.).
The conduct was wrong, but the character of the actor makes liability inappropriate. The defense excuses the conduct, but it does not condone it (intox, infancy, etc.).
Burden of Proof for Affirmative Defenses
Majority - require a preponderance of the evidence to support each element of the defense.
Illinois - requires only "some evidence" to support each element of the defense.
When the burden is ssatisfied, the judge is required to instruct the jury as to the defense. The burde then shifts to the state to disprove the claim and prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Insanity Special Burden of Proof
In IL, establishing an insanity defense requires clear and convincing evidence of insanity at the time of the commission of the crime.
Hard to do - IL legislature doesn't want everyone bringing the insanity defense (after Hinckley).
Self-Defense (Non-Deadly Force)
Common Law - must
1. Be a non-aggressor,
2. Reasonably believe the force is necessary to protect himself,
3. From an imminent use of unlawful force.
Majority/Illinois - must
1. Be free from fault,
2. Reasonably believe the attack on his person is imminent AND unlawful,
3. Direct his force at the wrongful aggressor, AND
4. Not use excessive force.
Self-Defense (Deadly Force)
Justified ONLY if D is faced with deadly force.
Common Law - deadly force cannot be used if a safe avenue of retreat is available (unless in your own home).
Majority/Illinois - no retreat requirement.
Minority - require retreat.
Defense of Others
Common Law - One is justified in protecting a 3rd party from an unlawful use of force to the extent that the 3rd party is justified in acting in self-defense.
Majority & Illinois - use of force MAY be justified if it reasonably appears necessary for the protection of the 3rd party.
Defense of Dwelling
Requires - (1) an unlawful entry or attack upon a dwelling, (2) to which force is necessary to prevent the attack (entry must be violent), (3) D reasonably believes in the necessity of defending the dwelling, (4) D actually (subjectively) believes in defending the dwelling, and (5) D is not the aggressor.
Deadly force can only be used to prevent an attack against a person within or to prevent the commission fo a threatening felony.
Defense of Property
Deadly Force -NEVER justified to protect one's property from theft, destruction, or trespass.
Non-Deadly Force - justified to protect one's property from theft, destruction, or trespass.
Public Authority Defense
Police officers are allowed to make arrests upon reasonable/probable causes. Felony arrests can be made w/o a warrant; misdemeanors arrests can only be made if the crime occurred in the cop's presence.
Citizens may make arrests for felonies, or for misdemeanors involving a BOP IF (1) the crime actually occurred, and (2) the citizen believes the suspect committed the offense.
Non-Deadly Force - justified by police OR citizens IF (1) the other person is committing a felony or a BOP misdemeanor AND (2) the force used is necessary to prevent commission of the offense.
Deadly Force - Never justified to prevent the commission of a misdemeanor. For felonies, deadly force is generally only acceptable for forcible or atrocious felonies.
Effectuation of an Arrest
Non-deadly force is permissible by police or any private citizen to effect a lawful arrest.
1. Common Law - police could use deadly froce even if unnecessary.
2. Majority/Illinois - must be a (1) felony and (2) necessary to prevent escape. Citizens may use deadly force in only extremely limited circumstances.
1. Without blame in causing the situation,
2. One reasonably believed,
3. That the conduct was necessary,
4. To avoid a greater public or private injury.
NOTE - the purpose must be to avoid a legally recognizable harm, and the threatened injury must be immediate.
A person is not guilty of an offense, other than murder, by reason of conduct that he or she performs -
1. Under compulsion of threat of te imminent infliction of death/GBI,
2. IF he/she reasonably believes death/GBI will be inflicted on them/spouse/child, 3. IF they do not perform the act.
Common Law - not a defense.
Majority - not a defense to GI crimes; a defense to SI crimes if the intoxication negated the SI.
Illinois - not a defense.
Common Law - where D was (1) unable to know the nature and uality of his act, or (2) if he did know, he did NOT know that what he was doing was wrong.
Majority/Illinois - where D lacks the substantial capacity to (1) appreciate the criminality of his conduct or (2) to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
Mistake of Fact (Common Law)
1. D subjectively harbored a mistaken belief about a fact,
2. D's mistake was reasonable, AND
3. The mistake was made w/ a morally & legally innocent state of mind.
Mistake of Fact (Majority/Illinois)
GI Crimes - mistake had to be (1) reasonable and (2) made with a legally innocent mind.
SI Crimes - mistake had to be (1) genuine and (2) made with a legally innocent mind.
Mistake of Law
Common Law - mistake is not a defense.
Majority - mistake of law is only a defense to specific intent crimes.
Illinois - a person's ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law IS a defense if it negates the existence of the mental state required.
A person's reasonable belief that his condcut does not constitute an offense is a defense if (1) defined by an order/regulation which he could not have obtained by due diligence, (2) he acts in reliance on a statute or Appellate+ level court decision that is later struck/overruled, (3) he acts in reliance on an official interpretation of the statute made by the Illinois A.G.
Not Reasonable Reliance
1. One's own intepretations of the law.
2. Advice of the prosecutor or private counsel.
Passive Offenses (Lambert)
A person may assert a constitutional defense to a crime if there was nothing to alert a reaosnable person as to the need to inquire into the law.
Insane if -
1. As a result of a disease of the mind,
2. D is laboring under such a defect of reasoning that -
A. He did not know that nature/quality of his act, OR
B. D did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
Minority Addnendum - if the suspect was laboring under an irresistible impulse to commit the crime.
Was not insane at the time of commission, but was suffering from a mental illness. 3 options - (1) convict as charged, (2) find D guilty but GBMI, (3) acquit by reason of insanity.