Defenses to Criminal Charges | Nolo.com Defenses To Criminal Charges Share on Facebook To convict a criminal defendant, the prosecutor must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, the defendant gets an opportunity to present a defense. There are many defenses, from "I didn't do it" to "I did it, but it was self-defense” and beyond. Read more about some common defenses below. (For much more on the available defenses in criminal cases, see our topic page on Defenses to Criminal Charges .) Didn't Do It Most often, defendants go with the claim that they simply did not commit the alleged act in question. The Presumption of Innocence All people accused of crime are legally presumed to be innocent until the point of conviction, whether that comes by way of trial or plea. This presumption means that the prosecution must convince the jury of the defendant's guilt, rather than the defendant having to prove innocence. A defendant may simply remain silent and not present any witnesses, then argue that the prosecution failed to prove its case. But, in practice, defense attorneys often present their own witnesses in order to counteract the government’s case.

Reasonable Doubt The prosecutor must convince the fact-finder of the defendant’s guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." This heavy burden of proof requires that the jury (in some cases, the judge) have a moral certainty that the defendant is guilty. With such a high burden on the opposition, defense attorneys often impress upon juries that thinking the defendant committed the crime isn’t enough for a conviction. The Alibi Defense An alibi defense consists of evidence that the defendant was somewhere other than the scene of the crime at the time of the crime. For example, assume that Jones is accused of committing a burglary on Hampton Street at midnight on September 14. Alibi evidence might consist of a friend’s testimony that he and Jones were at the movie theatre from 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. on the night of the 14th. Additional alibi evidence would be the movie tickets and a credit card statement showing that Jones purchased them shortly before 11:00 p.m. The Defendant Did It, But... Sometimes an acquittal is the result even if the prosecutor showed that that the defendant did, without a doubt, commit the alleged act.

(For more on this issue, see Jury Behavior .) Self-Defense Self-defense is commonly asserted by those charged with crimes of violence, such as battery , assault with a deadly weapon , or murder . The defendant admits that he or she did in fact use violence, but claims that it was justified by the other person's threatening or violent actions. The core issues in self-defense cases often are: Who was the aggressor? Was the defendant's belief that self-defense was necessary a reasonable one? If so, was the amount force the defendant used also reasonable? Self-defense is rooted in the belief that people should be allowed to protect themselves. In part, this means that someone doesn’t necessarily have to wait to the point of actually being struck in order to act in self-defense. Whatever the circumstances are, any force that the would-be defendant uses has to be reasonable under the circumstances. (For a more complete picture of this defense, see Self-Defense .) The Insanity Defense The insanity defense is generally based on the principle that punishment is justified only where defendants are capable of controlling their behavior and understanding that what they’ve done is wrong. The insanity defense prevents some people who can't function fully from being criminally punished.

(For much more on insanity, including the procedures and different tests for determining it, see Pleading Insanity in a Criminal Case .) The insanity defense is an extremely complex topic; many scholarly works are devoted entirely to explaining its nuances. Here are some major points of interest: Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, defendants rarely enter pleas of "not guilty by reason of insanity." When they do, they often have a hard time proving it. (Insanity is just one exception to the general rule that the prosecution must prove all components of a case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant need prove nothing.) Various definitions of insanity are in use because neither the legal system nor mental health professionals can agree on a single meaning of the concept in the criminal law context. Among the most popular definitions is the "M’Naghten rule," which essentially defines insanity as the inability to distinguish right from wrong. Another common test is known as "irresistible impulse," which applies to someone who may know that an act is wrong, but because of mental illness be unable to resist committing it. Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are not automatically set free. They are usually confined to mental institutions.

These defendants can spend more time in a mental institution than they would have spent in prison had they been convicted. An insanity defense normally rests largely on psychiatrists or psychologists, who testify after examining the defendant, his or her history, and the facts of the case. Courts appoint mental health professionals at government expense to assist poor defendants who cannot afford to hire their own. Under the Influence Defendants who commit crimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol sometimes argue that their mental functioning was so impaired that they cannot be held accountable for their actions. Generally, however, voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct. The theory is that defendants know (or should know) how alcohol and drugs affect functioning, and that they shouldn’t be off the hook because they chose to get themselves intoxicated. (For much more on the law, see Being Drunk: A Defense to Criminal Charges? ) Some states have an exception to this general rule: If the defendant is accused of committing a crime that requires "specific intent," he can argue that he was too drunk or high to have formed that intent. (Specific intent generally describes a situation where the defendant intends the precise consequences of an act in addition to intending the act itself—see General Intent Crimes vs.

Specific Intent Crimes .) Specific intent may be only a partial defense, however. For example, it might lead to an acquittal for assault with specific intent to kill but a conviction of assault with a deadly weapon, the latter of which typically doesn't require specific intent. Entrapment Entrapment occurs when the government induces a person to commit a crime that he wouldn’t have otherwise committed. However, law enforcement officers can provide opportunities for defendants to commit crimes without committing entrapment. Entrapment is often a difficult to prove. (For a detailed discussion of it, see Entrapment as a Defense to a Criminal Charge .) Get Help If you face criminal charges, consult an experienced criminal defense attorney. A knowledgeable lawyer will be able to fully explain the applicable law and protect your rights. For help finding a lawyer in your area, check out Nolo's trusted Lawyer Directory . Criminal Defense Strategies - FindLaw Criminal Defense Strategies Download article as a PDF Developing a defense with your attorney for your criminal case. In general, a criminal defense strategy for your criminal prosecution will emerge as your criminal defense attorney finds out more about what the prosecutor is planning to do.

Because each criminal prosecution is different from every other, a particular criminal defense strategy is unique to the situation at hand. For example, if a prosecutor in one case lays out a story that has the defendant at the scene of the crime, the defense attorney will probably ask questions that may lay out a different story showing the defendant at another location. In addition, how the criminal defendant acts and answers questions that the prosecutor poses will also change the criminal defense strategy. However, this is not to say that a criminal defendant and his or her attorney sit around and make up false stories that would tend to show innocence. Generally speaking, a criminal defendant that is open and honest with his or her attorney will have a better chance of putting up a great defense. But it is worthwhile to keep in mind that the truth that a defendant sees is not always the truth that a prosecutor sees. Indeed, there are often multiple versions of the truth that exist during a criminal prosecution. For example, if a defendant is on trial for murder charges , there could be many different true stories. In one storyline, the defendant killed the victim in cold blood as a premeditated crime. In another story, the defendant only killed the victim in self defense after the victim tried to assault the defendant.

The best criminal defense strategy comes when the defendant and the defense attorney lay out a story that is based in truth and shows the defendant in the best light possible. Keep in mind that, even if a defendant is guilty, depicting a story in a better light could lead to a plea bargain or even being found guilty on a lesser charge. Criminal Defense: The "Truth" Much like a great storyteller, a criminal defense lawyer is an expert at telling a truthful story in a number of different ways. In reality, a prosecutor and a defense attorney can both use the same foundation of factual events and come up with two completely different stories. You can think of this in the way that you would think of a map of the United States. In one map, you have the states depicted in their geographic areas with the state borders in dark lines. However, the other map instead shows the United States in a gradient scale of colors based upon the average income per population. Although both maps are true, they will probably look nothing alike. In the end, it is up to the criminal defense attorney and the defendant to come up with the best story possible for the defendant's situation. The end story should have such characteristics as: Being based in a truthful foundation of evidence.

As an example, if the defendant's car was being used as a getaway car, show that the defendant's car was stolen from his person at gunpoint the very morning of the crime. Having the ability to gain sympathy from the judge or the jury. For example, if possible, show that the defendant tried to withdraw from a crime before it was committed and even went as far as reporting the potential crime to the police in an attempt to prevent the crime from occurring. Explaining and proving why the events that occurred in the defendant's story were the actual events. For example, if the defendant claims to not have been at the crime scene when the crime occurred, the defendant's story must show why the defendant was not there. It is important for the criminal defense that the defendant's story be accurate and have the essential elements, based in truth, that point towards the defendant's goal. The defendant and his attorney should work carefully on this story before presenting it in court to make sure that no part of the story can be challenged by facts. Denials and Admissions of Guilt It is almost impossible for two defendants to come up with the exact same version of the events that took place during the crime.

Generally speaking, a defendant's story will fall into one of three categories: A "confession" story. This is where a defendant admits the crime to his or her attorney. As an example, the defendant comes into the attorney's office and admits that, "yes, I did break into the car and steal the radio as well as the money in the glove compartment." A "complete denial" story. This is where a defendant denies all of the charges that the prosecution has laid against the defendant. Perhaps the most popular complete denial story is one that involves an alibi. "There was no way I perpetrated the crime that I am accused of. In fact, I was out of town with my girlfriend. Why are they charging me with grand theft?" An "admit and explain" story. This type of story generally falls somewhere between a confession and a denial story. These stories normally involve a legal justification for the "crime." For example, "They are saying that I broke the window of the car and stole the radio and the money. However, what I actually did was use the key my friend gave me when he went out of town to remove the valuables from his car that was parked in a bad neighborhood.

The glass must have been broken after I removed the radio and the cash from the car." Creating a Criminal Defense Strategy After the criminal defendant tells his or her story to their criminal defense attorney, they will probably collaborate with each other to come up with a strategy that will work best in court. Generally speaking, this strategy will be based upon the story that the defendant tells his or her attorney, but will probably not be exactly the same. Coming up with a defense strategy is not as simple as telling the truth in a way that shows the defendant's innocence or lessened legal culpability. Instead, it will often involve weighing witnesses' credibility , figuring out the reputation between the community and the police as well as various other legal factors. In sum, all of these considerations will go into making a "theory of the case" that will be based upon the defendant's story as well as other provable facts. To look at how a great criminal defense strategy is created, let's look at an example. Suppose that a criminal defendant has been charged with burglary . The defendant goes to an attorney's office and tells his story, which he also confessed to the police after being arrested. Apparently, the man was identified by an eyewitness shortly after the burglary took place.

The witness is not certain of the identification, but is "pretty sure" he got the right face. The defendant tells his attorney that, although he was present at the scene of the crime, he did not take part in the execution of the crime. Instead, he merely went along so that his friends would not think less of him. In addition, when the defendant was arrested, the police did not inform him of his right to be silent or his right to have an attorney present when he was questioned . In the three categories above, this story would best be classified as a "confession" story because the defendant knew about the crime and was present while it was committed. However, the defense strategy would most likely be based upon a theory that the police used a weak eyewitness's account to make a stronger case then they should have and bullied the defendant into giving a confession. This is a theory that is based in truth and shows the defendant in a better light. Putting this theory forward in court could be very beneficial to the defendant. Indeed, the defense attorney would probably file a pre-trial motion asking for the confession to the police to be omitted from the record because the police engaged in an unconstitutional questioning by not reading the defendant his Miranda warning.

In addition, the defense attorney would also probably try to question the eyewitness and show that the identification was so flimsy that it would not establish "beyond a reasonable doubt" the true identify of the perpetrator. Depending upon the strength of the arguments, this theory could have its goal for the case to come back with a verdict of not-guilty, or for the prosecutor to offer a plea bargain to a lesser charge . Coaching Because attorneys are charged to be "zealous advocates" for their clients, this often means that they will provide coaching to their criminal defendant clients in order to put the best defense theory forward possible. In many situations, defense attorneys will: Use mock-interviews in order to get defendants to commit the defense theory to memory, Bring defendants to important crime scenes in order to stimulate memories, and Get defendants to write down the version of events as seen from their own point of view. Additionally, defense attorneys will often explain the theory of the case that the prosecution is using in order to get defendants to include important pieces of fact in their testimony.

For example, if a key part of the prosecution's case is that the defendant was in a certain location at a certain time, the defendant needs to remember to tell a version of events that does not place him at that location at that time. Defense attorneys should tell defendants about various pieces of information about the prosecution's case so that the defendant knows what kinds of evidence they need to produce. For example, suppose that Dennis has been charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Dennis' attorney could tell him: "Dennis, you are being charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery. What this really means to you is that you are being charged with planning with at least one other person to commit armed robbery and have taken steps towards achieving this goal. In speaking with the assistant district attorney about your case, I now know that they plan on showing that you purchased a gun after talking with Frank and George. They claim that your talk with Frank and George was to plan the armed robbery and that your purchase of the gun was in furtherance of the crime.

Now, do you have anything to tell me about your purchase of the gun or your talk with Frank and George?" Now, because Dennis has this information, he will be in better position to give the defense attorney the story that explains the gun purchase. For example, Dennis could have bought the gun to defend himself from Frank and George who said they would hurt him if he did not participate in the discussed armed robbery. Then, the purchase of the gun would not be in furtherance of the crime. The Truth Could Set You Free . . . In a shorter amount of time Another reason that defendants should tell their defense attorneys the complete truth is that it could lead to a lesser charge. If, for example, a defendant is charged with armed robbery, and the defendant tells his attorney that, yes, he did rob the store, but not with any weapon, this could reduce the charge to simple robbery, a much less serious crime in terms of potential jail time. Learn More About Legal Defenses with a Free Case Review There are a number of possible criminal defense strategies that may be available to you depending on the nature of your case and the individual facts.

Whether you hope to plead "truth" or completely deny the allegations, a criminal defense attorney will be able to best explain all your options and what defenses may be raised in your case. Start learning more today by getting a free case review from an experienced criminal defense lawyer. Next Steps The 17 Top Legal Defenses to Common California Crimes If, after reading this article you have additional questions, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group. 1) Accidents Accidents happen. Period. Fortunately, California law recognizes this and excuses alleged criminal conduct that occurs accidentally. If you accidentally commit an act that amounts to a crime… that is, you do so without criminal intent or negligence… you should bear no criminal liability. 1 But in some accident cases, prosecutors may still file charges if it appears you acted with ordinary or criminal negligence. Simply put, ordinary negligence takes place when you fail to act as a “reasonably prudent” person would have. California defines criminal negligence as acting with a reckless “I don't care what happens” attitude. 2 A car accident that arises out of a street race or drunk driving is an example.

As long as you didn't act with negligence and weren't motivated by any other criminal purpose, the legal defense of accident should absolve you of liability. 2) Alibi “Alibi” is a Latin word that means “in another place”. If you are accused of a crime… but could not have committed it because at the time it was committed you were somewhere else… then you have an alibi. If we can corroborate your alibi with witnesses, surveillance tapes, credit card receipts or other evidence, this should go a long way towards refuting any allegations that you are the culprit. Example: The police arrest you for a gas station robbery that took place last Saturday in Rancho Cucamonga. They arrest you because you match the description given by the attendant (and even have a prior robbery conviction). However, you were at a family reunion last Saturday in Oakland. There are pictures of you at the reunion and you have a plane ticket showing that you flew there Saturday morning. For further discussion of when evidence of an alibi is useful, visit our page on alibi as a legal defense in California criminal cases . 3) Coerced Confessions Police may not use overbearing measures to coerce an involuntary confession.

Examples of improper or illegal interrogation tactics may include: continuing to question you even after you ask for a lawyer, depriving you of food, water, or sleep, “beating” you (or threatening harm or greater punishment), and/or making false promises of leniency in exchange for a confession. These tactics can be so overbearing that, as studies have shown, it's not uncommon for innocent people to acquiesce and admit to criminal acts they never actually committed. If we can show that the police coerced you into a confession, then (1) the judge may exclude your confession from evidence, or (2) the case should be dropped altogether if indeed you got pressured into confessing to a crime you didn't commit. Please read our article on False & Coerced Confessions Leading to Wrongful Conviction in California for further discussion. 4) Double Jeopardy The “double jeopardy” clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution protect you from (1) being prosecuted a second time for the same offense following an acquittal or a conviction (but typically not a mistrial), and (2) facing multiple punishments for the same offense.

Let's say that a jury acquits you of your California Vehicle Code 23152 DUI charges 3 . Double jeopardy prevents the prosecutor from claiming that he/she subsequently received additional evidence and would like to retry the case. Being placed “once in jeopardy” acts as a permanent bar to retrial for the same offense. To understand when double jeopardy does and does not apply, please read our page Double Jeopardy in California criminal law . 5) Duress If you commit a crime because you reasonably believe your life is in immediate danger, California law excuses your criminal conduct. 4 “Duress” excuses criminal culpability when you only commit the crime because another person's threats or menacing actions compel you to do so. 5 But there's one crime that duress does not excuse: California Penal Code 187 murder . 6 You may not kill another person to save your own life unless it is in self-defense. 7 If, however, you to commit a felony because of duress… and you accidentally or negligently kill someone during the commission of that felony… California's felony-murder rule would not be triggered. This means that you would not automatically be held criminally liable for that murder.

8 For a more detailed discussion, visit our page on " duress or threats as a legal defense in California ." 6) Entrapment California's entrapment defense applies to situations where you would not have committed the alleged offense but for for the harassment, threats, or coercion of the police or their agents. If you were entrapped, it basically means that the police… who were most likely undercover… persuaded you to commit a crime. 9 Entrapment is frequently raised as a defense to California sex offenses and California drug crimes . 10 It is perhaps most prominently raised in connection with sting operations run by undercover decoy officers trying to make busts for Penal Code 311 child pornography , and possessing and/or selling illegal substances. 11 Entrapment is a legal defense that you must prove by a preponderance of the evidence. 12 A “preponderance of the evidence” means that it is more likely than not that the only reason you committed the alleged crime was because of the overreaching police conduct. 7) False Accusations / Wrongful Arrest Unfortunately, it is not at all uncommon for people to get prosecuted based on false allegations.

Jealousy… revenge… anger… attempts to cover up one's own criminal involvement… these are just a few of the reasons why someone may falsely accuse an innocent person of a crime.” 13 False allegations are especially common in California domestic violence cases and in California Penal Code 273d PC child abuse cases. 14 The good news is that we know the best ways to investigate these types of allegations to reveal the truth… and to clear your name. 8) Insanity In California, the test for determining whether a defendant is legally insane is known as the M'Naghten test. Essentially a test of “right and wrong,” the M'Naghten standard holds that if the defense can prove that the defendant committed the crime only because he/she didn't understand the nature of his/her act, OR couldn't distinguish right from wrong, then California criminal law excuses that conduct. 15 The insanity defense… just like the legal defense of entrapment … needs to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 16 If the defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, he/she will likely be committed to a psychiatric facility until the court believes that he/she is no longer a threat to society.

For further discussion, please visit our page on the "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense in California law . 9) Lack of Probable Cause The California search and seizure rules require police to have probable cause before they can detain you or arrest you. "Probable cause" essentially means that a reasonable and cautious officer would believe that criminal activity is or was taking place based on the surrounding circumstances. If it appears the cops stopped, detained or arrested you without probable cause, your criminal defense attorney may file a motion to suppress. At a "suppression motion" hearing (per California Penal Code 1538.5 ), your lawyer asks the court to exclude any evidence that was obtained via an improper search and seizure. 17 If the motion is granted, your case will oftentimes be dismissed. 10) Mistaken Identity Mistaken eyewitness identification is the leading cause of wrongful conviction.

It can happen because: you (your physical description, your clothes, your car, etc.) happen resemble the actual perpetrator, someone assumes you are to blame for a criminal act (for example, an elder's doctor reports you for violating Penal Code 368 PC, California's elder abuse law 18 because he sees bruises and incorrectly assumes you, the primary caretaker, must have inflicted them), or someone points the finger at you to cover-up his/her own criminal liability. Example: The police detain Johnny near the scene of a robbery because he looks similar to the description of the suspect. Johnny is not the actual perpetrator. But because he looks like the perp, a witness mistakenly picks him out of a pretrial police lineup . Johnny gets convicted for a crime he didn't commit, and sent to prison. 11) Mistake of Fact If you act under an honest and reasonable mistake of fact, you are not guilty of a crime. 19 If, for example, you are accused of stealing your neighbor's lawnmower… but you did so because you believed it was the one you previously lent him that he never returned to you… then you aren't guilty of theft.

But, the old-adage is also true: ignorance of the law is not a defense. 20 This means that you can't break a law just because you don't know it's a law. For example, if you buy alcohol for a minor, prosecutors could charge you with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The fact that you didn't know such conduct was illegal will not excuse your actions. For a further discussion, visit our page on mistake of fact or law as a legal defense in California criminal law . 12) Necessity The California legal defense of “necessity” excuses criminal conduct when it is done only to avoid an even greater harm. If you reasonably believe that you or another person are about to suffer significant bodily harm… and there is no other reasonable legal alternative to engaging in the criminal conduct… you may be entitled to an acquittal of the charged offense(s). 21 For example, suppose someone is chasing you and trying to kill you. You charge up to a random house, break through a window, take shelter and call 911. Normally breaking into a house might constitute trespass, burglary and Penal Code 594 vandalism .

22 But here, your actions would probably be excused as being done out of necessity. Necessity is another California legal defense that must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 23 For a detailed discussion, visit our page on the "necessity defense" in California criminal law . 13) Parents Right to Discipline a Child Parents have a legal right to discipline their children in a reasonable manner, which includes inflicting corporal (or physical) punishment. If you are accused of Penal Code 273d, California's child abuse law, or of Penal Code 273a, California's child endangerment law , you may be entitled to an acquittal if you can demonstrate that your acts were not unreasonable or unjustified under the circumstances. 24 14) Police Misconduct It's not at all uncommon to see acts of misconduct, abuse and excessive force by California police , such as planting evidence unnecessarily using tasers or pepper spray on cooperative subjects When we can identify and prove such acts of police misconduct, it may give us leverage towards winning your criminal case. It may also allow us to press civil rights claims and seek money damages.

15) Self-Defense / Defense of Others Under California's self-defense law , if you injure or kill another person in self-defense or in defending another person, your conduct will be excused. But your actions must be reasonable under the circumstances. 25 In other words, if you believe that you or another person face imminent danger… and you only use as much force as is reasonably necessary to alleviate that danger… then you have a valid claim of self-defense. 16) Unconsciousness If you are unconscious while you commit a crime, California law excuses your actions. 26 This legal defense is applicable to people who, for example, commit criminal acts while sleeping, suffering from an epileptic seizure, or who are involuntarily intoxicated. On that note, it is important to understand that if you commit a crime while unconscious or sleeping… but while voluntarily intoxicated… you will still be held criminally liable. The most common example of this is “ sleep-driving” while under the influence of Ambien or Lunesta 27 . 17) Voluntary and Involuntary Intoxication Voluntary intoxication doesn't typically serve as a valid criminal defense.

But it may bear on the issue of whether you possessed the requisite mental state to commit certain “specific intent” crimes. “Specific intent” means that you specifically intended the consequences of your act (California theft offenses are examples of “specific intent” crimes). 28 While “unconsciousness” generally serves as a legal defense to a crime 29 (discussed above), this isn't the case if your unconsciousness stemmed from voluntarily intoxication. 30 For example, unconsciousness may give you a defense to a vehicular manslaughter charge if you fell asleep at the wheel. But if you passed out at the wheel due to drug or alcohol consumption, it probably would not. If you are involuntarily intoxicated, that generally provides a complete defense to most any crime. This would be the case if, for example, someone secretly slipped a drug in your drink… or a doctor prescribed you a sedative without warning you of the side effects. But you are only “involuntarily” intoxicated if you didn't voluntarily consume any alcohol and/or drugs. 31 If, for example, you voluntarily smoked a joint… but didn't realize that it was actually laced with PCP… you can't then claim involuntary intoxication.

32 For a more detailed discussion, visit our page on drug or alcohol intoxication as a legal defense in California criminal law . Call us for help… If you or loved one is in need of help with legal defenses and you are looking to hire an attorney for representation, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group. We can provide a free consultation in office or by phone. We have local offices in Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, Pasadena, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura, San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Diego, Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose and throughout California. We additionally have criminal law offices in Las Vegas and Reno. Please contact our Nevada criminal defense attorneys for questions relating to Nevada's legal defenses. 33 Legal References: 1 California Penal Code 26 PC -- Persons capable of committing crime; exceptions. (“All persons are capable of committing crimes except those belonging to the following classes… Five--Persons who committed the act or made the omission charged through misfortune or by accident, when it appears that there was no evil design, intention, or culpable negligence… ”) See also California Jury Instructions -- Criminal.

CALJIC 4.45 Accident and Misfortune as California legal defenses. (“When a person commits an act or makes an omission through misfortune or by accident under circumstances that show [no] [neither] [criminal intent [n]or purpose,] [nor] [[criminal] negligence,] [he] [she] does not thereby commit a crime.”) And use notes state: (“If this instruction in its entirety is given, an instruction defining [California's standard of] “criminal negligence” must be given sua sponte. (People v. Brucker, 148 Cal.App.3d 230, 239–240, 195 Cal.Rptr. 808, 812–813 (4th Dist.1983).) For such a definition, see CALJIC 3.36. The bracketed words “criminal” should be deleted if the instruction is given in a misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter prosecution. If the crime charged can only be committed with general or specific intent, do not instruct on criminal negligence. (See People v.

Lara, 44 Cal.App.4th 102, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 402 (2d Dist.1996).)”) 2 People v. Odom (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1028 summarizes California's definition of criminal negligence. ("["Criminal negligence" refers to negligent conduct which is aggravated, reckless or flagrant and which is such a departure from the conduct of an ordinarily prudent, careful person under the same circumstances as to be contrary to a proper regard for [human life] [danger to human life] or to constitute indifference to the consequences of that conduct. The facts must be such that the consequences of the negligent conduct could reasonable have been foreseen and it must appear that the [death] [danger to human life] was not the result of inattention, mistaken judgment or misadventure but the natural and probable result of aggravated, reckless or flagrantly negligent conduct.]") 3 California Vehicle Code 23152 VC -- Driving under the influence (DUI).

(“(a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle. (b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.”) 4 California Penal Code 26 PC -- Persons capable of committing crime; legal defenses. (“All persons are capable of committing crimes except those belonging to the following classes… Six--Persons (unless the crime be punishable with death) who committed the act or made the omission charged under threats or menaces sufficient to show that they had reasonable cause to and did believe their lives would be endangered if they refused.”) 5 People v. Steele (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 703, 706.(“The [California legal] defense of duress, unlike the necessity justification, requires that the threat or menace be accompanied by a direct or implied demand that the defendant commit the criminal act charged.”) 6 California Penal Code 187 -- Murder.

(“(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.”) 7 People v. Anderson (2002) 28 Cal.4th 767, 770. (“… fear for one's own life does not justify killing an innocent person. Duress is not a [California legal] defense to murder.”) 8 See same at 784. (“On a final point, we note, contrary to the Attorney General's argument, that duress can, in effect, provide a defense to murder on a felony-murder theory by negating the underlying felony. (See People v. Anderson (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1646, 1666-1667, fn. 18, 285 Cal.Rptr. 523; Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law, supra, ch. 9, § 2, pp. 1058-1059; LaFave, Criminal Law, supra, § 5.3(b), pp.

468-469.) If one is not guilty of the underlying felony due to duress, one cannot be guilty of [the California] felony murder [rule] based on that felony. Here, for example, the court instructed the jury that duress could be a defense to the kidnapping charge. It also instructed on felony murder with kidnapping as the underlying felony. If the jury had found defendant not guilty of kidnapping due to duress (it did not), it could not have found that he killed during the commission of that kidnapping. Defendant could not have killed during the perpetration of a crime of which he was innocent.”) See also California Penal Code 189 – Murder.

(“All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable under [California Penal Code] Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other kinds of murders are of the second degree.”) See also People v. Cavitt (2004) 33 Cal.4th 187, 197.

(“The purpose of the felony-murder rule is to deter those who commit the enumerated felonies from killing by holding them strictly responsible for any killing committed by a cofelon, whether intentional, negligent, or accidental, during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of the felony. ( Burton, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 388, 99 Cal.Rptr. 1, 491 P.2d 793.) 9 People v. Barraza, (1979) 23 Cal.3d 675, 689. (Summarizing California's entrapment defense… "For all the foregoing reasons we hold that the proper test of entrapment in California is the following: was the conduct of the law enforcement agent likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense?") See also CALJIC 4.60 -- Entrapment.

(“It is a [California legal] defense to a criminal charge that the commission of the alleged criminal act, was induced by the conduct of law enforcement agents or officers [or persons acting under their direction, suggestion or control] when the conduct would likely induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime. To establish this defense the defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct of the law enforcement agents or officers [or persons acting under their direction, suggestion or control] would likely induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.”) 10 California sex offenses and California drug crimes are areas of the law that often involve undercover sting operations. These officers are placed undercover in an effort to “catch” criminals in the act of engaging in Penal Code 647(b), California's prostitution law, Penal Code 647(a) lewd acts in public, Penal Code 311 child pornography, and buying, selling, and possessing illegal substances, more commonly referred to as drugs. 11 See same. 12 See CALJIC 4.60, endnote 10, above.

13 Van Nuys criminal defense attorneys know the most effective ways to present California legal defenses. Shouse Law Group defends clients throughout Los Angeles and Ventura County, including the Ventura Hall of Justice , the Van Nuys courthouse , the Pasadena courthouse , the Burbank courthouse , the Glendale courthouse , the Lancaster courthouse, the San Fernando courthouse, and the Criminal Courts Building. 14 Because California domestic violence cases and California Penal Code 273d child abuse cases often arise out of emotional, highly-charged situations, partners, spouses, and even children are frequently guilty of making false accusations in an effort to gain an upper-hand over the accused. 15 California Penal Code 25 – Insanity as a California legal defense. (“… (b) In any criminal proceeding, including any juvenile court proceeding, in which a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is entered, this defense shall be found by the trier of fact only when the accused person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.”) See also People v.

Horn (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1014, 1032. (“Accordingly, we hold that Penal Code section 25, subdivision (b), reinstates the California M'Naghten right and wrong test as the standard for the insanity defense in this state.”...and at 1027, “The liberalization of the M'Naghten rule, which we have already described, reached its zenith in Wolff. There the court approved this “commendably broad interpretation upon the M'Naghten 'knowledge' test: ...'The test of sanity is this: First, did the defendant have sufficient mental capacity to know and understand what he was doing, and second, did he know and understand that it was wrong and a violation of the rights of another?”' ( People v. Wolff, supra., 61 Cal.2d at p. 801; italics in original.) As can be seen, this test of sanity uses the conjunctive “and” construction. Conversely, the test of insanity necessarily must use the disjunctive “or” form.

In order to be sane, “'the defendant must be able to know and understand the nature and quality of his act and to distinguish between right and wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.”' ( Ibid., italics in original.) Thus if a defendant knows and understands the nature and quality of his act but does not know it is wrong, he is, by definition, insane. Hence the reciprocal tests of sanity and insanity were correctly stated in CALJIC No. 4.00 (3d ed. 1970): “If you find that the defendant was capable of knowing and understanding the nature and quality of his act and, in addition, was capable of knowing and understanding that his act was wrong, you will find that he was legally sane.

However, if you find that the defendant was not capable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his act, you will find that he was legally insane; or, if you find that he was incapable of knowing or understanding that his act was wrong, you will find that he was legally insane.” The confusion over the correct usage of the conjunctive/disjunctive form of the M'Naghten rule thus arises from the failure to distinguish between the alternative definitions of sanity and insanity. This not uncommon confusion is evident in the Proposition 8 formulation of the M'Naghten test. We accept this blurred statement for what it appears to be, a careless draft… ”) This case goes into a lengthy discussion of whether the test requires a defendant to meet both prongs or simply one – although the test says “and”, the court held that was the result of “careless drafting” and requires only that a defendant meet one of the prongs of the M'Naghten test (that is, Penal Code 25(b)). See also CALJIC 4.00 -- Insanity as a California legal defense.

(“A person is legally insane when by reason of mental disease or mental defect, [he] [she] was incapable at the time of the commission of the crime of one of the following: [1] Knowing the nature and quality of [his] [her] act; or [2] Understanding the nature and quality of [his] [her] act; or [3] Distinguishing what is legally right from what is legally wrong; or [4] Distinguishing what is morally right from what is morally wrong.” Italics added) 16 See Penal Code 25(b), endnote 16, above. 17 A motion to suppress evidence is made via at Penal Code 1538.5 hearing. California Penal Code 1538.5 -- Motion to return property or suppress evidence.

("(a)(1) A defendant may move for the return of property or to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of a search or seizure on either of the following grounds: (A) The search or seizure without a warrant was unreasonable...") 18 Penal Code 368, California's elder abuse law penalizes a variety of physical, emotional, and financial that are committed against persons who are 65 years or older. 19 CALJIC 4.35 -- Ignorance or mistake of fact as a California legal defense. (“An act committed or an omission made in ignorance or by reason of a mistake of fact which disproves any criminal intent is not a crime. Thus a person is not guilty of a crime if [he] [she] commits an act or omits to act under an actual [and reasonable] belief in the existence of certain facts and circumstances which, if true, would make the act or omission lawful.”) 20 CALJIC 4.36 -- Ignorance or mistake of law as a California legal defense.

(“When a person voluntarily commits an act or engages in conduct which the law declares is a crime, it is no defense that [he] [she] did not know that the act or conduct was unlawful or that [he] [she] believed it to be lawful.”) 21 CALJIC 4.43 – California's legal defense of necessity. (“A person is not guilty of a crime when [he] [she] engages in an act, otherwise criminal, through necessity.

The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence all of the facts necessary to establish the elements of this defense, namely: [1] The act charged as criminal was done to prevent a significant and imminent evil, namely, [a threat of bodily harm to oneself or another person] [or] [ ]; [2] There was no reasonable legal alternative to the commission of the act; [3] The reasonably foreseeable harm likely to be caused by the act was not disproportionate to the harm avoided; [4] The defendant entertained a good-faith belief that [his] [her] act was necessary to prevent the greater harm; [5] That belief was objectively reasonable under all the circumstances; [and] [6] The defendant did not substantially contribute to the creation of the emergency[.] [; and [7] The defendant reported to the proper authorities immediately after attaining a position of safety from the peril.]”) 22 California Penal Code 594 PC -- Vandalism.

("(a) Every person who maliciously commits any of the following acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of vandalism: (1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material. (2) Damages. (3) Destroys.") 23 See same. 24 CALJIC 4.80 -- Parent's Right to Discipline Child. (“It is lawful for a parent reasonably to discipline a child, and in doing so to administer reasonable punishment, including the infliction of reasonable corporal punishment. However, it is unlawful for a parent to inflict unjustifiable punishment upon a child. Corporal punishment is not justified and is therefore unlawful if the punishment was not reasonably necessary, or was excessive, under the circumstances. The defendant contends that [he] [she] was lawfully disciplining the child. The People have the burden of proving that the force applied to the child was unlawful, that is, not reasonably necessary or excessive, under the circumstances. If you have a reasonable doubt that unlawful force was applied, you must find the defendant not guilty.

If you find that the use of force was not reasonably necessary or was excessive, you must determine what crime, if any, was committed in light of the other instructions.”) See also Penal Code 273(a), California's child endangerment law.

(“(a) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years.(b) Any person who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”) 25 CALCRIM 3470 – California's legal right to self-defense or defense of another (Non-Homicide).

(California's self-defense law states "The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if: [1] The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name of third party<) was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully]; [2] The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger; AND [3] The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.") See also CALCRIM 505 -- Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another.

("The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if: [1] The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name or description of third party<) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other forcible and atrocious crime<)]; [2] The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger; AND [3] The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.") 26 California Penal Code 26 PC -- Persons capable of committing crime; California legal defenses. (“All persons are capable of committing crimes except those belonging to the following classes… Four--Persons who committed the act charged without being conscious thereof.”) See also CALJIC 4.30 -- Unconscious Acts. (“A person who while unconscious commits what would otherwise be a criminal act, is not guilty of a crime.

This rule of law applies to persons who are not conscious of acting but who perform acts while asleep or while suffering from a delirium of fever, or because of an attack of [psychomotor] epilepsy, a blow on the head, the involuntary taking of drugs or the involuntary consumption of intoxicating liquor, or any similar cause. Unconsciousness does not require that a person be incapable of movement.”) 27 Driving under the influence of a sleep aid is prosecuted just like any other California DUI case. A conviction subjects the driver to the same penalties and punishment as any other DUI driver. 28 California theft offenses require the specific intent to permanently deprive an owner of his/her property. 29 California Penal Code 26 PC -- Persons capable of committing crime; exceptions. (“All persons are capable of committing crimes except those belonging to the following classes… Four--Persons who committed the act charged without being conscious thereof...”) 30 People v. Walker (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1615, 1621. (“Unconsciousness caused by voluntary intoxication is, however, governed by section 22, not section 26. ( People v.

Conley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 310, 323-324, 49 Cal.Rptr. 815, 411 P.2d 911.) Although voluntary intoxication may at times amount to unconsciousness, it cannot give a complete defense under [California Penal Code] section 26, subdivision 4; it can only negate specific intent under section 22.”) 31 CALJIC 4.23 -- Involuntary Intoxication. (“Intoxication is involuntary when it is produced in a person without [his] [her] willing and knowing use of intoxicating liquor, drugs or other substance and without [his] [her] willing assumption of the risk of possible intoxication. Evidence of involuntary intoxication should be considered in deciding whether the defendant had the necessary [criminal intent] [mental state[s]] at the time the crime is alleged to have been committed.”) 32 People v. Velez (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 785, 796.

33 Our Nevada criminal defense attorneys Michael Becker and Neil Shouse are available to answer any questions relating to Nevada legal defenses. Please contact them at Shouse Law Group for more information. Get Quick Legal Help Most responses within 5 minutes Please stand by. A member of our staff usually responds within a few minutes Please complete all required fields below. Name * City where case is located * Tell us what happened * I'd like to come in for a free consultation I'm only seeking information I'm looking to hire an attorney I'd like to discuss by phone rather than come in Contact our Nevada Firm This contact form is the BEST way to reach us (better than calling). It gets routed to the right attorney, and most responses are within 5 minutes Please stand by. Someone will contact you momentarily. Please complete all required fields below. Name * Can we text you at this number? * Email City where case is located * Tell us what happened * I'm looking to hire an attorney I'm only seeking information Send me LVDG's monthly legal e-newletter I'd prefer to discuss the matter by phone I'd like to come in for a FREE consultation If you'd like to come in for a FREE consultation, what day?

(Please select one day, and your appointment is now confirmed.) Monday If you'd like to come in for a FREE consultation, what time? (Please select one time slot, and your appointment is now confirmed.) 9am-10am Most responses within 5 minutes. Thank you for contacting us. We will get back to you shortly. Please complete all required fields below. Name * City where case is located * Tell us what happened * Most responses within 5 minutes. Thank you for contacting us. We will get back to you shortly. Please complete all required fields below. Name * Can we text you at this number? * City where case is located * Tell us what happened * Thank you for contacting us. We will get back to you shortly. Please complete all required fields below. Name * Can we text you at this number? * Yes City where Case is Located * Message * I'm looking to hire an attorney I'm only seeking information I'd like to come in for a free consultation I'd prefer to discuss the matter by phone Featured on: powered by BirdEye Free attorney consultations... Our attorneys want to hear your side of the story. Contact us 24/7 to schedule a FREE consultation with a criminal defense lawyer.

We may be able to get your charges reduced or even dismissed altogether. And if necessary, we will champion your case all the way to trial. Shouse Law Group has multiple locations all across California, Nevada, and Colorado. Click Office Locations to find out which office is right for you. Regain peace of mind... Our defense attorneys understand that being accused of a crime is one of the most difficult times of your life. Rely on us to zealously and discreetly protect your rights and to fight for the most favorable resolution possible. Defending Yourself Against a Criminal Charge - FindLaw Defending Yourself Against a Criminal Charge Download article as a PDF Every case is different, but here are a few of the most common defenses to a criminal charge In order to convict you of a criminal charge, the prosecutor must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a pretty lofty standard, and during any trial the defendant may present a defense in order to raise such a reasonable doubt. Most defenses break down into one of two categories: (1) I didn't do it or (2) I did it, but I shouldn't be held responsible. 1. I Didn't Do It The most basic defense to any criminal charge is to simply prove that you didn't do it.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty One of the hallmarks of the American legal system is the presumption that you are innocent until proven guilty . This isn't just an ideal, it's an actual legal presumption, which means the judge and jury must assume you're innocent until they are shown otherwise. This is why a defendant can " plead the fifth ," remain silent, and not offer a shred of evidence to support his or her claim of innocence and still prevail. It is the prosecutor's job to prove a defendant is guilty, not a defendant's job to prove that he or she is innocent. So what does a prosecutor have to show? Beyond a Reasonable Doubt The prosecutor must demonstrate to the judge or jury that there is no reasonable doubt of your guilt . If any reasonable doubt can be shown, any at all, then the prosecutor has failed and you should be found innocent. Because this standard is so high, most defendants concentrate on raising some reasonable doubt to the prosecutor's allegations. I Have an Alibi One of the primary ways defendants prove that they didn't do it is to demonstrate that they couldn't have done it. An alibi defense is evidence that you were somewhere else, often with someone else, and thus couldn't have been the perpetrator.

By demonstrating to a judge or jury that it is likely that you weren't present at the crime scene, you are creating a reasonable doubt of your guilt. 2. I Did It, but Shouldn't Be Held Responsible Many defendants admit that they did the act, but claim for one reason or another, that they shouldn't be held responsible. Here are a few examples of this type of defense: Self-Defense This is a common defense when someone is charged with causing some form of physical violence (assault, battery, etc). The defendant flips the story, and demonstrates that rather than being the aggressor, he or she was actually the victim and was acting to protect themselves from harm. Self-defense is an ancient defense that exists in most legal systems, and is predicated on the belief that people have a right to defend themselves from physical injury. Proving such a defense can be tricky since a defendant will generally have to demonstrate that self-defense was necessary, the belief of physical harm was reasonable, and that the response was reasonable. For example, responding to an assailant's threat to punch you by shooting them is almost certainly an unreasonable response. Insanity Defense Although it makes for fascinating TV dramas, in real life defendants rarely plead insanity as a defense.

Judges and jurors are very skeptical of these claims, and because of the abstract nature of this defense, it can be very difficult to actually prove. The theory behind an insanity defense is the notion that in almost every criminal law, there is a "mental" or "intent" element. Often, the required mental state is that you must have intended to perform the criminal act. If a defendant is precluded from an understanding of what they're doing because of mental illness, then they can't possess the mental state that the criminal charge requires. From a policy standpoint, we also tend to think that it would be more appropriate to send someone who is truly insane to psychiatric care, not to prison. Thus, even if a defendant is successful in an insanity defense, they will be sent to a psychiatric institution, not set free. So how do courts define "insane"? The most popular definition is the McNaughten test which defines insanity as "the inability to distinguish right from wrong". To successfully win an insanity defense, a defendant will rely on testimony from a psychiatrist, and will undergo extensive psychiatric testing which can be painful and humiliating.

Under the Influence Defense Related to the insanity defense, some defendants defend themselves by claiming that they were under the influence of drugs, and could not have had the mental state necessary to commit the crime. In other words, they were too high to really know what they were doing. Only a few states allow this defense, and even then, it is only a partial defense. At best, it will lower the crime you are convicted of to a lesser crime. Entrapment Defense An entrapment defense is appropriate when an official induces you to commit a crime . Common examples of this are prostitution stings or drug sales. The theory is that the government shouldn't be allowed to push you into committing a crime and then convicting you for it. This defense won't be successful if the judge or jury believes you were predisposed to committing the crime, however. So even if an undercover officer offered to sell you illegal drugs, if you have a history of drug use, then an entrapment defense isn't likely to be successful. Free Case Evaluation from a Criminal Defense Attorney Defending yourself against a criminal charge has many facets. No one individual can understand the full ramifications of every charge and every defense to a criminal case without a good criminal defense attorney.

So if you're being investigated or charged with a crime, you'd be wise to seek out a free case review with a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Next Steps What Is an Alibi? | Nolo.com What Is an Alibi? Share on Facebook Updated March 3, 2016 An alibi is evidence showing that a defendant was somewhere other than the scene of a charged crime at the time that the crime occurred. Film and TV characters often pronounce the word "alibi" with a sneer, suggesting that alibi claims are inherently untruthful. In reality, an alibi is a perfectly respectable legal defense. Here's how it works: Ellis Ware is charged with robbing a convenience store. Ware offers evidence that he was attending a Kiwanis Club meeting at the time of the robbery. Ware's defense amounts to an alibi. Alibis Don't Mean Defendants Must Testify Defendants may offer an alibi defense without giving up their constitutional right to remain silent . Any witness who can place the defendant at a location other than the scene of the charged crime can provide an alibi. Let's use the example discussed above as an illustration of how this works.

Ellis Ware (who is charged with robbery ) chooses not to testify at his trial, fearing that if he takes the stand the judge will allow the prosecutor to attack his credibility by offering evidence of his prior felony conviction. Ware's defense attorney supports Ware's alibi defense by calling Miriam as a witness to testify that she was with Ware at the Kiwanis Club meeting at the time of the robbery. To bolster the alibi defense, Ware's attorney shows Miriam a photograph depicting her, Ware, and others, and asks Miriam to identify the photo as one that was taken during the meeting. Alibis and the Burden of Proof Defendants who offer alibi defenses do not take on the burden of proving to a judge or jury that the alibi is accurate. The burden of proving a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt remains with the prosecution. Of course, a judge or jury can consider the credibility of alibi evidence when deciding whether the prosecution has met its burden. Back to the Ellis Ware scenario. Miriam testifies on behalf of Ware that he was with her at a Kiwanis Club meeting when the robbery took place.

Cross examined by the prosecutor, Miriam admits that she didn't mention this alibi to the police officers who initially interviewed her. During closing argument, the prosecutor tells the jury, "If the alibi were true, Miriam would have said so the first time the police talked to her. She wasn't a believable witness, so you must find the defendant guilty." This argument, without anything more, is improper. Whether or not the jury believes Miriam, the burden remains on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ware robbed the store. Nevertheless, the jury's disbelief of Miriam can add to the persuasiveness of the prosecution's case. Defendants Must Give Pre-Trial Notice of Alibi Evidence In most states and the federal system, if the defense intends to rely on alibi evidence at trial, " discovery " laws require that it let the prosecutor know beforehand. This gives prosecutors time to investigate the alibi and prepare to undermine it. For example, let's say Rick Blaine is charged with a sexual assault crime. He plans to offer an alibi defense that he was at the Bijou Theater watching the film Casablanca at the time the assault occurred.

Blaine has to notify the prosecution of this planned defense and the witnesses who will support it in advance of trial. The prosecution then has time to investigate the alibi. If the investigation turns up evidence that the Bijou theater was showing only Treasure of the Sierra Madre on the date of the sexual assault, the prosecutor might undermine Blaine's alibi by calling the theater's manager to testify as to which film was showing on the night in question. Learn More For more on the alibi defense, including discussion of federal law on the topic, see Criminal Law Defenses: Alibi . For information about the law in your jurisdiction—and how it applies to your situation—consult a knowledgeable attorney.

Question: What is a legal defence for being somewhere other than at the scene of a crime?
Answer: Alibi