Answer

1. Discussion and Case Study

   Question 1

               To be able to use intoxication as a defense in Michigan state, one has to be able to prove to the jury that they had no intention or malice beforehand to commit the crime, and this means that one has to be able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the act of the crime was a consequence of their intoxication. The defendant has to also prove to the court that their action was not based on mental illness, and may be required to take relevant tests to prove this fact (Scheb & Scheb, 2013,p. 19). The idea in this case is to enable the defense acknowledge that their actions due to intoxication had little thoughts of the consequence. They also try to acknowledge that the defense had no time or opportunity to logically think about how they acted before committing the crime.

   Question 2

              In the state of Michigan, one can use the self-defense plea as a defense if they believe without any reasonable doubt that their life is in imminent and evident danger and they can get serious bodily harm. The self-defense plea can also be used if the defendant can prove to the court that the other party posed a threat to their life, or had the intention of sexually assaulting them (Scheb & Scheb, 2013,p. 17). The law states that, “Deadly force may also be used “to repel an imminent forcible sexual penetration.” The law also gives room for a person to use deadly force on another person if they are attacked by another person. The condition for use in this scenario is that they must have a special relationship with the person being attacked, which includes a spouse or a relative. The condition is the main difference between the use of deadly force in self-defense and the use of deadly force in defense of others.

    

   Question 3

                 One can show an “honest and reasonable belief” that harm is about to occur by highlighting that they acted in a way that a reasonable and normal individual would act if they were in the same circumstances (Scheb & Scheb, 2013,p.16). The law provides for a defendant to provide under section 6 of the constitution which defines a “rebuttable presumption” as when an individual uses force that can be termed as deadly to gain access to another peron and cause great bodily harm that can be termed as dangerous (Blocher & Vaseghi, 2020, p.115). The concept also applies to a scenario where the attacker is gaining access or is trying to enter a dwelling, vehicle or a business centre and gain access to the place for the purpose of inflicting harm to another person.  In the defense of others however one has to still prove a special relationship with the person being attacked, which includes a spouse or a relative.

   Case Brief

   Case Facts

           The People vs Kurr case involves the defendant, a lady, who killed her boyfriend, Antonio Pena, by stabbing him with a knife. The case was brought before the Kalamazoo Circuit Court under the number LC No. 99-001277-FC and was decided on October 4^th, 2002. The defendant was found guilty at the time and was sentenced to five to twenty years’ imprisonment. The jury came to this conclusion based on the fact that the defendant was a habitual offender and had been convicted three times before this. The defendant sought the appeal to argue that she should have been allowed an instruction from the jury that acknowledged that she was acting on the defense of others at the time (Ruben, 2020, p. 56). She told the court on appeal that she was pregnant with quadruplets at the time of the murder. She also told a police officer based in Kalamazoo that she and her boyfriend had argued on October 9^th, 1999 over Pena’s apparent cocaine use that had become chronic. She told the officer that they had consequently argued further, and Pena came and punched her twice in the stomach. She also said that she told him not to hit her again because she was carrying his children. She stated that he did not take heed of her words, and when he came to hit her again, she stabbed him in the chest. Facts

   Opinion of the Court

             The court’s rationale was based on the fact that the defendant first could not claim the defense of others, and therefore neglected or disapproved her pregnancy claims. The act that she had issued a warning to the defendant to stop hurting her because she was pregnant was therefore unfounded. The fetuses based on the physician’s claims were also dismissed because a nurse that was employed by the Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s Department testified that the defendant took a pregnancy test on November 9^th, 1999 which turned out negative. The defendant’s cell mate also testified that she had a tissue like discharge on her sanitary pads on the first week of September.

   Comments on the Court’s Decision

              The court failed to appreciate all elements of self defense in the case according to me. The defendant had tried to be reasonable with the deceased, even giving him a fair warning of her condition. The fact that she was ignored by both the defendant and the court shows a more valid reason as to why the defendant was not guilty, especially based on the fact that she had tissue like discharge on her sanitary towel,which could be indicative of a pregnancy.