Exempting Circumstances 493a63

Crim I: Justifying Circumstances + Exempting Circumstances 7/15/2012 2:35:00 AM    

Most of these cases, the offender voluntarily did it. JC + EC = extenuating circumstances: prevents criminal liability from arising. Justifying circumstances: one is entitled to do it, it is justified. You are not criminal liability. Absence of ACTUS REUS in Justifying Circumstances = no crime, no wrongful act to speak of.



Exempting circumstances: applies also to Culpable Felonies.



Exempting circumstances: causes for non-imputability; absence of components of voluntariness. Lack of any of the components of voluntariness, no criminal liability. EC ISSUE: Imputability of the act of the actor rests on the basic requirement of voluntariness. Nothing beside COMPLETE deprivation of freedom will negate imputability. Nothing short of voluntariness will exempt you from criminal liability. Once you invoke JC/EC, you it doing the act, burden of proof shifts on you, and it must be proven by clear evidence.

    

 

    

There is a defect in requisites voluntariness? Mitigating circumstance. Incomplete requisites of voluntariness? JC/EC

INSANITY Being able to distinguish between right and wrong, is it determinative of insanity? Yes. Measure whether it falls under insanity: presence/absence of voluntariness. Insanity may destroy/diminish intelligence. Lack of Intelligence = Insanity, mere diminution/defect = not an exempting circumstance. Offends due process when you put an insane person in trial. (insanity during trial) Factual/Actual absence of intelligence

  

 

  

MINORITY Legislature, 15 and below = unintelligent Whether child is intelligent or not = discernment (above 15 and below 18) Does not necessarily talk about the absence of intelligence, it is a legislative determination. ART 12(4) Diff. between JC of state of necessity? Not by mere accident, act was clearly intended. Diff. between JC of lawful exercise of a right? It is not within his power or lies beyond foreseeable consequences (accident), presence of negligence/fault will make it unlawful. MAIN DIFFERENCE: There is a concurrence of requisites, see which applies. Intended lawful act diff from the act that would cause an injury. State of necessity vs Accident = what was intended was the lawful act not the injury caused by accident; avoidance of greater evil/injury, act done to avoid it is an intended act, injury caused was intended but necessary, therefore justified.

 -

Important to differentiate JC & EC because of civil liability. unjust enrichment (JC) –> Civil liability

 

Uncontrollable fear vs state of necessity Video of family being hit = uncontrollable fear

7/15/2012 2:35:00 AM

7/15/2012 2:35:00 AM