Criminal Defense Case Analysis
Some of the widely used defense positions include duress, intoxication and insanity. The identified defenses are used to secure the innocence of a plaintiff. Duress is considered subjection to perform an act that is unlawful by means of force. It usually applies in cases of imminent or possible peril of death, injury, serious injury present in the defendants’ mind and burdening his will as rational capacity. On the other hand, defense on grounds of intoxication apply when toxicity negates an intention. For instance, lack of a particular intent might reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. Additionally, specific mens rea are applicable in specific cases or incidences. Insanity is also another form of defense assumed in law. It is defined as a mental disorder that has the potency to negate intent in a crime. However, it is only applicable to crimes which elements of intent. A declaration of innocence on grounds of insanity usually results in the defendant’s admission, in a mental hospital.
In the case of Dixon vs., United States (05-7053), which was presented in the United States Court Of Appeals, Fifth Circuit on April 25 2006 various issues were presented before the judges in court for determination (Cornell University Law School, 2012). There were issues of duress, criminal law, saddle of proof, beaten-up woman’s syndrome, due process clause and the Fifth Amendment. The concerns in this case presented before the court of appeal were if the defendant was to bear the saddle of persuasion and provide grounds through the preponderance of the evidence (Cornell University Law School, 2012).
This was after the defendant had assumed a position of affirmative defense of duress. In addition, the defendant could also prove if the government was to bear the burden as well as demonstrating outside reasonable doubt that duress was inexistent. The petitioner Dixon was of the opinion that the government should accept the saddle of persuasion due to the presence of duress, which in turn counteracts the mens rea, or the component of the crime committed. Additionally in the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment, the government is tasked with proving all aspects of a crime beyond reasonable doubt and disproving any form of defense (Cornell University Law School, 2012).
In January 2003, Keshia Dixon bought seven guns illegally by providing information that was false to gun dealers in Dallas. The defendant claimed that, Thomas Earl Wright, her then boyfriend, intimidated her and her three daughters with death threats if she failed to oblige to make the gun purchases on his behalf. Another fact is that the boyfriend is a convicted felon who is unable to make purchases of guns for himself. Additionally, the defendant, Dixon, claims that she has been a victim of a pattern of persistent abuse. She claims that she was beaten an approximately four to five times that week before the purchase. However, she did not lodge any complaint or report with the local police offices nor did she seek help from her neighbors (Cornell University Law School, 2012).
In the court proceedings, she was charged with providing false information to obtain firearms and receipt of guns while she faced indictment for earlier charges. She raises the confirmatory defense of duress. This claim raised by the defendant enables individuals to escape legal liability is they are able to show the presence of coercion to execute a crime failure to which there is imminent bodily harm or injury. As established in the fifth circuit rule, the defense accepts the saddle of proof for the defense availed. Hence, it must prove all the elements or aspects of defense through a predominance of the evidence provided. Dixon was charged and convicted under this part of the law ion the trial court (Cornell University Law School, 2012).
Her defense argued that the Fifth Circuit should provide reconsideration on grounds that the duress defense assumed by Dixon counteracted the mens rea and the elements of the crime at hand in the case. Her grounds were dismissed because she was not under what is described immediate threat to peril and injury posed by the boyfriend. The justification for the ruling is due to the aspect of immediacy. Immediacy falls as the major requirement in the duress defense as it requires the presence of urgency to save life through committing a crime.
In the case of R v Lipman (1970)1 QB 152, which was a case that established that voluntary intoxication irrespective of its extremities, did not amount to a defense for manslaughter (Sixth Form Law, 2012). The defendant who voluntarily accepted to consume dangerous drugs was expressly taking a dangerous risk which any ordinary individual would foresee. Hence, with his lack of intent to execute perilous acts, it is relevant to a court conviction of manslaughter. The defendant and the victim or deceased were both addicts of drugs and on the evening of 16 September 1967 took LSD (Sixth Form Law, 2012).
The following day the defendant left the country leaving the victim in the hotel room with brain hemorrhaging and evidence of asphyxiation. The defendant was extradited back into the country and presented in court. He claimed that, after taking the drugs, they both experienced hallucinations. In addition, he claimed that he thought he was attacked by snakes resulting in injury of the victim (Sixth Form Law, 2012).
Hence, the jury accepted his account because he did not harbor any intent of causing bodily harm or killing the victim. He was convicted of manslaughter by the jury. The excuse of justification in this case is based on intent of the defendant. If it could be established through evidence of the initial intentions of the defendant before the uptake of the drugs, hence it could be established if the grounds of manslaughter were necessary. Hence, he was excused because he did not intend to cause bodily or grievous harm (Sixth Form Law, 2012).
There was a need to establish the intent of the defendant and the circumstances, which led to the demise of the victim. Additionally, it is evident that it was immaterial that the defendant did not harbor any intention of carrying the preceding actions after taking up the drugs. However, he understood that taking the drug would result in unwanted actions such as the cause of harm or loss of property.
References
Cornell University Law School. (2012). “Dixon v. United States (05-7053)-2003. Oral Argument April 25, 2006” Legal Information Institute Supreme Court Bulleting. Accessed from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/05-7053
Sixth Form Law. (2012). “R v Lipman (1970) 1 QB 152” Cases. Accessed from http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_60_gen_def_automatism.htm
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]