Northern Virginia Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Brien Roche Law Firm : Medical Malpractice, Product Liability, Car Accidents : Washington DC, North Virginia, Maryland

A related defense in property crimes is protection of property. As a general rule, a person can use whatever force, short of deadly force, that reasonably appears to be necessary to protect property. A classic case in that regard involved the homeowner who laid a trap in his home consisting of a spring gun that fired when the burglar entered the front door. Since a spring gun automatically fires, anyone entering the house is at risk. And since human life is valued over property, the homeowner cannot claim defense of property when someone was killed entering the house.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The ultimate defense to a crime against a person is self-defense. As a general rule, a person may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to prevent immediate and unlawful harm to him- or herself. Some jurisdictions have adopted the retreat rule that requires a person who can safely retreat to do so before using deadly force.

In general, the defense of self-defense permits a person to employ reasonable, nondeadly force to resist an unlawful arrest. However, as a practical matter, resisting an unlawful arrest is a risky maneuver because it could result in worse physical harm to the accused.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Another defense that may be raised to some criminal violations is that of vagueness. The U.S. Constitution precludes punishing a person under a statute that is too vague to be understood. A statute should be sufficiently clear that a reasonable person could determine what conduct is forbidden and the statute should be sufficiently clear as to prevent arbitrary enforcement by the police. Loitering statutes over the years have been subject to tests for vagueness. For example, if they preclude any person from being on a public street at any time, then they may be subject to constitutional challenges for vagueness.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Entrapment is a much more difficult defense. The purpose of the entrapment defense is to prevent the government from manufacturing a crime. An undercover police officer who offers to purchase narcotics from someone who he or she believes to be a pusher is not guilty of entrapment. However, an undercover police officer who applies immense pressure to a suspect to sell him or her narcotics by establishing a friendship with him or her and then playing on that friendship to overcome that person’s unwillingness to sell narcotics probably would be guilty of entrapment.

The purpose of the entrapment defense is to prevent the government from manufacturing a crime.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A woman who is threatened with sexual assault, and who then breaks down a neighbor’s front door to seek refuge is not guilty of burglary because her conduct is governed by the defense of necessity. She needed to find safety.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Coercion arises when there is duress. The bank teller who turns over the bank’s money to the robber is acting under duress and therefore is not guilty of larceny in removing the money from the drawer. He or she is coerced in releasing the money.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Another defense that can be raised is intoxication. If a crime requires specific intent, then a person who is intoxicated may be incapable of forming that specific intent.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There are several defenses that can be raised in a criminal case.

One of the more newsworthy defenses is that of insanity. Different states have adopted different rules as to how insanity is to be determined.

Some states adopt a simple test known as the M’Naghten rule, which is simply a determination of whether the perpetrator was able to distinguish right from wrong. Other states adopt the irresistible impulse test that may apply when a defendant knew he or she was doing wrong, but the status of his or her mind prevented him or her from controlling his or her conduct—he or she was overtaken by an irresistible impulse to engage in that behavior.

The District of Columbia adopted the Durham test several years ago. It provides that an accused is not criminally responsible if his or her unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect. These types of insanity defenses are generally the subject of a good deal of controversy and normally involve expert testimony from psychiatrists or other mental health professionals.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Prosecutors over the last several years have become more daring in bringing conspiracy charges against persons involved in criminal behavior. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or to commit a lawful act, in an unlawful manner, and one or more persons commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. In a conspiracy case, the agreement itself is the actus reus and the intent to commit the unlawful act is the mens rea.

Suppose you and I agree to rob a bank. The agreement alone does not constitute a conspiracy. If, however, I go out and buy a handgun that is to be used in the robbery, at that point I have committed an overt act to pursue the conspiracy and at that point I may be guilty of the crime of conspiracy.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The law also recognizes principals and accessories in criminal activity. The getaway man (driver) in a bank robbery who does not actually go into the bank is an accessory. That person probably will be punished similarly as the principals, who were actually in the bank. If, however, a person not even at the scene of the bank robbery assists the bank robbers in getting the getaway vehicle, knowing that it was to be used for that purpose, then he or she also may be an accessory. An accessory in that context probably would not be subject to the same punishment as a principal.

A person could also become an accessory by assisting the bank robbers in eluding the police. In that event, he or she would be an accessory after the fact. Again, in that type of circumstance, he or she probably would not be subject to the same punishment as the principals.

More difficult cases arise when a person is present at the time of a crime under circumstances that suggest approval. Normally, this is not sufficient to convict a person of a criminal violation. One exception to this would be an instance in which the defendant is under a duty to act.

Example: If a father stands by idly while his minor son attacks a third person, he could—at least in some states—be guilty of a criminal violation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Another type of criminal behavior is solicitation. Solicitation involves a specific intent to engage in a particular type of criminal conduct. If I offer to pay you $50,000 to kill my business partner, that constitutes solicitation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The mere attempt to commit a crime may also be a crime. An attempt to commit a crime normally involves a specific intent. For instance, attempted murder involves the specific intent to kill. If someone’s intent, however, is only to cause serious bodily harm, then he or she cannot be guilty of attempted murder. Because attempt requires a specific intent, it is impossible to attempt a crime that by definition cannot be committed intentionally. For example, involuntary manslaughter cannot be attempted because it requires the wrongdoer to cause death unintentionally.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Aside from intent, another essential element of most criminal violations is that of actus reus, meaning the guilty act. If a person merely forms the intent to kill someone, but never does anything to actually implement it, then he or she has not committed any crime. If, however, that person forms the intent, goes out and purchases the weapon, and enters into a conspiracy to use that weapon to kill someone, then he or she may be guilty of a crime. In order to constitute actus reus, the act must be voluntary.

These two critical elements of mens rea and actus reus must occur concurrently.

Example: If Mark intentionally shoots to kill you, but misses and later accidentally kills you, he is not guilty of murder. At the time that Mark committed the act (actus reus) of accidentally killing you, he no longer had the intent (mens rea) of actually killing you.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks