Week 13 Assignment: Essay Practice Answer 1: In Model Penal Code (MPC) jurisdictions, Section 304 defines the use of force as justified in self-defense when the subject believes that the use of force is necessary or immediate to protect yourself against another person's unlawful use. However, defenses such as self-defense and duress apply under certain conditions, such as: • The use of deadly force is not justified unless the actor believes it is necessary to protect themselves against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, or forced sex by force or threat. • The use of force in self-defense or under duress is unjustified if the subject is to cause death or serious bodily injury. _In the circumstances presented, it was unreasonable for the Defendant to believe that violence was imminent as a result of his father's threats that would justify the use of force in self-defense. Therefore, the court may consider the father's arthritis and limited use of his hands when determining whether the Defendant's belief in the necessity of force was reasonable. _And if you choose the defense of duress: this defense will not be possible if the Defendant recklessly puts himself in a situation where he is likely to be coerced. Under the MPC, if and only if the Defendant committed the act of deadly force under duress or had to do so using or threatening to use force unlawfully in response to the threat, or the Defendant is a person who is reasonably determined in his opinions and is irresistible due to the situation. Therefore, in the above situation, legal issues that may arise include: • Whether the Defendant's response was proportional to the perceived threat, given that his father's ability to carry out the threat was limited due to arthritis. • Whether the Defendant's history of abuse and resulting heightened sensitivity to threats may be considered in determining the reasonableness of the Defendant's belief that force was necessary. • Whether the Defendant had an opportunity to retreat or avoid confrontation is relevant under the MPC when considering the justification for using force. These pleadings and the accompanying legal issues will need to be considered based on the specific facts of the case and the applicable law. The court will decide whether the self-defense and duress defenses apply based on the evidence presented. Answer 2: According to the Model Penal Code (MPC), theft is defined as the unlawful appropriation or control of another person's property to deprive it of that property permanently. The MPC consolidates various forms of theft into a single offense, including theft, embezzlement, and pretenses. Common Theft: Traditionally, theft is taking and carrying away another person's tangible personal property to deprive the owner of the property permanently. Defendant's action of finding and keeping the earrings may constitute theft if it is proven that Defendant intended to deprive the owner of the property permanently. Theft under MPC: MPC requires intentional theft by unfair appropriation. In this case, the Defendant's initial act of taking the earrings may not have been for theft because she may not have known they belonged to her friend. However, as she knew the owner and refused to return the earrings, her actions could be considered intended to permanently deprive the owner of his property, thereby satisfying the requirement of intent to commit theft under the MPC. Legal considerations: • Mens Rea (Intent): The prosecutor must prove that the Defendant had the specific intention to permanently deprive the owner of the earrings when she decided to keep them. • Actus Reus (Act): Taking a pair of earrings and wearing them to a party can be considered an act of taking control of property. • Conversion: If the Defendant initially intended to steal but then decided to keep the earring, this can be considered conversion, which is also a form of theft. In short, based on the facts provided, the prosecutor could argue that the Defendant refused to return the earrings after learning that their rightful ownership amounted to theft under the MPC. The critical issue is proving the Defendant's intention to keep the earring.
