important social value or because the resulting harm is outweighed by the benefit to society. For example, if 
a surgeon cuts someone with a knife to remove a cancerous growth, the act is a beneficial one even though 
it results in pain and a scar. In raising a justification defense, the defendant admits he did a wrongful act, such 
as taking someone’s life, but argues that the act was the right thing to do under the circumstances. At times, 
the state’s view differs from the defendant’s view of whether the act was, in fact, the right thing to do. In 
those cases, the state files charges to which the defendant raises a justification defense. 
Justification defenses include self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, defense of habitation, 
consent, and necessity, also called, choice of evils. Justifications are affirmative defenses. The defendant must 
produce some evidence in support of these defenses. In most cases, the defendant must also convince the jury 
that it was more likely than not (a preponderance of the evidence) that his or her conduct was justified. For 
example, the defendant may claim that he or she acted in self-defense and at trial would need to call witnesses 
or introduce physical evidence that supports the claim of self-defense, that it was more likely than not that 
his or her actions were ones done in self-defense. State law may vary about how convinced the jury must be 
(called the standard of proof) or when the burden switches to the defendant to put on evidence, but all states 
generally require the defendant to carry at least some of the burden of proof in raising justification defenses. 
Excuses 
Excuses are defenses to criminal behavior that focus on some characteristic of the defendant. With excuses, 
the defendant is essentially saying, “I did the crime, but I am not responsible because I was . . . insane (or too 
young, intoxicated, mistaken, or under duress).” Excuses include insanity, diminished capacity, automatism, 
age, involuntary intoxication, duress, mistake of fact, and then a variety of non-traditional syndrome excuses. 
Like justifications, excuses are affirmative defenses in which the defendant bears the burden of putting on 
some evidence to convince the jury that he or she should not be held responsible for his or her conduct. 
Procedural Defenses 
Procedural defenses are challenges to the state’s ability to bring the case against the defendant for some 
reason. These defenses point to some problem in the process or the state’s lack of authority to bring the case 
rather than facts surrounding the crime or the criminal. Procedural defenses include: double jeopardy (a 
defense in which the defendant claims that the government is repeatedly and impermissibly prosecuting him 
or her for the same crime), speedy trial (a defense in which the defendant claims the government took too 
long to get his or her case to trial), entrapment (a defense in which the defendant claims the government 
in some way enticed him or her  into committing the crime), the statute of limitations (a defense in which 
the defendant claims the government did not charge him or her within the required statutory period), 
and several types of immunity (a defense in which the defendant claims he or she is immune from being 
prosecuted). Although procedural defenses are considered procedural criminal law, many states include the 
availability of these defenses in their substantive criminal codes. 
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
116