MATCHING.

Question

1. Consent defense
2. Entrapment
3. Subjective standard (majority rule) for entrapment
4. Objective standard (minority rule) for entrapment
5. Legal traps
6. Infancy defense
7. Involuntary intoxication
8. Voluntary intoxication
9. Insanity defense
10. M’Naghten rule

a. States that the defendant lacked the mental state to understand the nature and consequences of the crime.
b. The defense that a child is too young to either be prosecuted or stand trial as an adult.
c. Asks the question, “Was the defendant predisposed to commit the crime?”
d. Holds that a defendant “is presumed to be sane and possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to the jury’s satisfaction” beyond a reasonable doubt.
e. The condition of a person who unknowingly ingests an intoxicating substance.
f. Asks the question, “Would an innocent person be induced to commit the crime by the officer’s acts?”
g. The defense that the defendant had the victim’s consent to perform the acts.
h. The condition where a person knowingly ingests an intoxicating substance.
i. Techniques used by law enforcement to catch criminal activity that fell short of entrapment.
i. Techniques used by law enforcement to catch criminal activity that fell short of entrapment.
j. A defense used when law enforcement officials lure a person into committing a crime.

Answer 1

1. g. The defense that the defendant had the victim’s consent to perform the acts.
2. j. A defense used when law enforcement officials lure a person into committing a crime.
3. c. Asks the question, “Was the defendant predisposed to commit the crime?”
4. f. Asks the question, “Would an innocent person be induced to commit the crime by the officer’s acts?”
5. i. Techniques used by law enforcement to catch criminal activity that fell short of entrapment.
6. b. The defense that a child is too young to either be prosecuted or stand trial as an adult.
7. e. The condition of a person who unknowingly ingests an intoxicating substance.
8. h. The condition where a person knowingly ingests an intoxicating substance.
9. a. States that the defendant lacked the mental state to understand the nature and consequences of the crime.
10. d. Holds that a defendant “is presumed to be sane and possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to the jury’s satisfaction” beyond a reasonable doubt.