What are the exemptions from prosecution by reason of previous prosecution in New York?
What are the exemptions from prosecution by reason of previous prosecution in New York?
Within any prosecution for a crime, it’s an affirmative defense of duress that the defendant engaged in the supposed crime because they were coerced to do so by the use or threat of physical force upon them or another person, which force or threat anyone of reasonable firmness in their situation would’ve been unable to resist. Also, the defense of duress isn’t available when anyone intentionally or recklessly places themselves in a situation where it’s probable they’ll be subjected to duress.
Entrapment
Within any prosecution for a crime, it’s an affirmative defense of entrapment that the defendant engaged in the supposed crime because they were encouraged to do so by a public servant, or by someone acting with a public servant, attempting to obtain evidence against them for the purpose of criminal prosecution, and when the methods they used to obtain the evidence created a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by anyone who wasn’t otherwise disposed to commit it. Encouragement to commit an offense means active encouragement. Conduct merely giving someone an opportunity to commit an offense doesn’t constitute entrapment.
Renunciation
Within any prosecution for a crime, other than an attempt to commit a crime, where the defendant`s guilt depends upon his liability for the crime of another person, it’s an affirmative defense of renunciation that, under circumstances that include a voluntary as well as complete renunciation of his criminal purpose, the defendant refused to partake in the crime and made a substantial effort to prevent the commission of the crime.
Within any prosecution for criminal facilitation, it’s also an affirmative defense of renunciation that, before committing the felony that they facilitated, the defendant made an effort to prevent the commission of said felony. It’s also considered affirmative defense that under circumstances involving voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal purpose, the defendant didn’t commit the crime and attempted to abandon their criminal effort, and also if abandonment wasn’t enough to avoid this, the defendant took further as well as affirmative steps that prevented the commission of the crime. Within prosecution for criminal solicitation or for conspiracy in which the crime solicited or the crime thought about by the conspiracy wasn’t actually committed, it’s also an affirmative defense that, under circumstances involving a voluntary and complete renunciation of their criminal purpose, the defendant prevented the commission of the crime. A renunciation isn’t voluntary and complete if it’s motivated in whole or in part by a belief that circumstances exist that will increase the probability of being detected, or in the apprehension of the defendant or another participant in their criminal enterprise, or that will make the accomplishment of the criminal purpose more difficult, or else a decision to postpone the crime until another time, or else to transfer the crime to another victim or another similar aim.
Mental Disease or Defect
In any prosecution for a crime, it’s an affirmative defense of mental disease or defect that when the defendant engaged in the supposed crime, he lacked criminal responsibility because of mental disease or defect. Such lack of criminal responsibility means that at the time of the crime, as a result of mental disease or defect, they lacked the capacity to know or appreciate either the nature and consequences of the crime, or that the behavior was wrong.