Discover published sets by community

This defense can apply when a defendant renounces criminal intent and withdraws from participation in an impending or ongoing crime before it is committed, thereby avoiding liability.

This defense bars the state from prosecuting an individual after a certain period of time has passed since the commission of the crime, reflecting the idea that legal proceedings must occur within a reasonable timeframe.

This defense is invoked when a homicide is committed under circumstances which make it excusable, such as self-defense or defense of others where the death of the assailant was necessary.

An alibi is a form of defense where the defendant proves they were in another place at the time the crime was committed and thus could not be the perpetrator.

This defense is available when the defendant acts to prevent the commission of a crime. It requires immediate action and is often related to the defense of property or persons.

This defense is claimed when a defendant reasonably did not know their conduct was illegal. However, ignorance of the law is typically not exonerating, but there can be exceptions.

This defense occurs when a law enforcement official induces a person to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed. The defense focuses not on the defendant's state of mind, but on the conduct of the authorities.

This defense argues that the defendant was not responsible for their actions due to a severe mental disease or defect at the time of the crime. It is based on the idea that punishment is not morally appropriate if the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or conform to the law.

Used when a defendant's ability to understand the nature of the crime or to form criminal intent is diminished by mental incapacitation or disability, this defense doesn’t excuse the crime but may reduce the charge or severity.

This defense is similar to abandonment, asserting that the defendant has given up their criminal intent and has taken affirmative steps to prevent the occurrence of the crime thereafter.

This defense suggests that because of intoxication, the defendant was incapable of forming the requisite intent to commit a crime. There are distinctions between voluntary and involuntary intoxication in its legal applicability.

This defense indicates that the alleged victim consented to the defendant's conduct, negating an element of the crime, particularly in crimes against persons such as assault or battery. Consent must be voluntary, informed, and given by a person with the capacity to consent.

This defense argues that the defendant was forced to commit the illegal act under threat of immediate harm to themselves or others, similar to duress but typically involves lesser crimes.

This defense relates to defendants who are too young to be held criminally responsible for their actions. The age at which children become criminally responsible varies depending on jurisdiction.

This defense is used when a defendant honestly and reasonably believes that a fact exists which negates a legal element of the offense. If the belief were true, the act would not have been a crime.

This defense protects against being tried twice for the same offense after acquittal or conviction. It is part of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

This defense involves disputing criminal charges on the basis of engaging in peaceful protest or civil disobedience, typically involving the assertion of protecting a higher law or moral imperative.

In some legal systems, this defense is akin to the statute of limitations, where the right to prosecute expires after a certain period since the offense occurred or was discovered.

This is not a defense per se, but the result when new evidence surfaces that confirms the defendant's innocence after a verdict, leading to the setting aside of the original verdict.

This defense asserts that the defendant had to commit the crime to avoid a greater harm. The situation must be of an emergency nature where the harm avoided exceeds the harm caused by the crime.

This defense is granted when a defendant is exempted from prosecution often in exchange for cooperation or information. Either transactional (full) or use and derivative use (limited) immunity can be granted.

Diplomatic agents are entitled to immunity under international law, which may protect them from prosecution depending on their diplomatic status and the severity of the crime.

This defense justifies the use of force to protect oneself from harm. The force used must be proportional to the threat and used only when there is a reasonable belief of an imminent and unlawful attack.

This defense suggests that an unforeseen and unconnected event broke the direct chain of causation between the defendant's actions and the harm that occurred, thereby relieving the defendant of liability.

This defense allows a person to use force to defend another person. It is similar to self-defense but is exercised in the protection of someone else, with the same requirement for proportional force and imminent threat.

This defense permits the use of reasonable force to defend one's property. Deadly force, however, is often not justified unless there is a serious threat to one's own life or safety.

This defense claims that the defendant was forced to commit a crime due to an immediate threat of serious harm from another. For duress to succeed, the threat must be of greater harm than the crime committed.

This defense is claimed when a defendant’s actions were not conscious and therefore not voluntary, such as acts committed during an unconscious or semi-conscious state, including sleepwalking.

This defense asserts that the accused was acting in accordance with a legal obligation or authority, and therefore their conduct should not be criminalized, such as actions taken by a police officer in the line of duty.