Can defense request findings of fact before resting?

Question

Hypothetical scenario: A victim is identified with documented injuries consistent with having been struck with a weapon.  The police find and charge a person (now "Defendant") that they claim perpetrated the act of striking the victim with a weapon.  This Defendant stands trial for the crime of "Assault."

Common Law provides a number of Criminal Defenses that could be raised in this scenario (e.g., Self Defense, Duress).  However, in order to raise such a defense the Defendant would have to effectively confess to the Assault (or at least some critical elements of it).  E.g., a Defendant can't argue, "I feared for my life" without, in effect, admitting that he was present and capable of striking the victim.

Can the Defense require that the fact-finder in a trial (typically a jury) rule on prefatory facts, before it finishes the defense?

In this hypothetical, it seems prejudicial (and something like a violation of a Defendant's fifth-amendment right to not witness against himself) to require that the Defendant admit that he was present at the scene of the crime in order to invoke a defense.

It seems more consistent with the principles of our legal system to allow the Defense to require the Prosecution to first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was at the scene of the crime.  Because if the Prosecution can't meet that hurdle, then that's the end of the trial.

In practice is it possible for the Defense to avoid presenting affirmative defenses (like Self Defense) before the Court has found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime?  If so: How?

If not: Is there some theory or principle that illuminates why this is not considered a violation of the Defendant's fifth-amendment rights?

nanoman · Answer

in order to raise such a defense the Defendant would have to effectively confess to the Assault (or at least some critical elements of it)

It may be possible to avoid this by arguing in the alternative.

a party in a lawsuit is not limited to one argument... if you are on trial for murder, you may argue that the case was one of mistaken identity, and that although a murder occurred, you were not present... in the alternative, you argue... your actions did not amount to murder, and were in fact only self-defense. (source)

argues his client was 100 miles from the scene of the murder and, alternatively, that the murder was in self-defense. (source)

Dale M · Answer

Can defense request findings of fact before resting? Is it possible for the Defense to avoid presenting affirmative defenses (like Self Defense) before the Court has found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime? If so: How?

No, no and not applicable.

A verdict is a singular declaration by the jury (or judge) that the state has or has not proved their case.

Affirmative Defence

These are all affirmative defenses which defeat or mitigate the consequences of the unlawful conduct and the onus of proof lies with the Defence, not the Prosecution. An affirmative defence must be pleaded in a timely manner.

If the Prosecution fails in their burden to prove the unlawful conduct the affirmative defence does not get engaged. This is a threshold decision point for the trier of fact and the judge should so instruct the jury.

Of necessity, affirmative defences require some admission of fact, however, these facts may not be in contention anyway. Where they are in contention, it requires a strategic choice by the defendant as to whether to use the affirmative defence or not.

Is there some theory or principle that illuminates why this is not considered a violation of the Defendant's fifth-amendment rights?

Because the defendant is not compelled to make these defences.

Can defense request findings of fact before resting?

2 Answers