Luật & Tố tụng Hình sự

Quy tắc chung (liên bang / đa số)

General law treats a movement made while unconscious as no voluntary act, so no crime is committed (MPC § 2.01(2)). The point is argued as a missing element of the actus reus, not as a separate defense.

California

Pen. Code § 26, class Four, makes unconsciousness a complete defense, and the jury is instructed on it as a defense (People v. Newton (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 359). Exception: unconsciousness from voluntary intoxication is never a complete defense. Under § 29.4 it may negate only specific intent, premeditation, deliberation or express malice, so a killing can still be involuntary manslaughter.

Quy tắc chung (liên bang / đa số)

States split on a killing in an honest but unreasonable belief in the need for deadly self-defense. Many reduce it to voluntary manslaughter; others call it murder. The MPC grades it by the defendant’s fault: a reckless belief means manslaughter, a negligent belief means negligent homicide (MPC § 3.09(2)).

California

An honest but unreasonable belief in the need to defend against imminent danger of death or great bodily injury negates malice. The killing is voluntary manslaughter, not murder (People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668). In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768 held that the rule survived the statutes that abolished diminished capacity.