§ 39-11-615. Protection of Third Person’s Property
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another to protect real or personal property of a third person, if, under the circumstances as the person reasonably believes them to be, the person would be justified under § 39-11-614 in threatening or using force to protect the person’s own real or personal property.
§ 39-11-616. Use of Device to Protect Property
The justification afforded by §§ 39-11-614 and 39-11-615 extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property, only if: The device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm; The use of the particular device to protect the property from […]
§ 39-11-601. Justification a Defense
It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct of the person is justified under this part.
§ 39-11-602. Justification Definitions
As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires: “Custody” means under arrest by a law enforcement officer, or under restraint by an officer, employee or agent of government pursuant to an order of a court; “Deadly force” means force that is intended or known by the defendant to cause or, in the manner […]
§ 39-11-405. Individual Liability for Corporate Conduct
A person is criminally liable for conduct constituting an offense that the person performs or causes to be performed in the name of or on behalf of a corporation to the same extent as if the conduct were performed in the person’s own name or behalf.
§ 39-11-406. Affirmative Defense to Criminal Responsibility of a Corporation
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of a corporation under § 39-11-404(a)(1) or (3) or § 39-11-405, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that the high managerial agent having supervisory responsibility over the subject matter of the offense employed due diligence to prevent its commission. Subsection (a) does not apply […]
§ 39-11-407. Defenses Excluded
In a prosecution in which a person’s criminal responsibility is based upon the conduct of another, the person may be convicted on proof of commission of the offense and that the person was a party to or facilitated its commission, and it is no defense that: The other belongs to a class of persons who […]
§ 39-11-501. Insanity
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature or wrongfulness of the defendant’s acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. The […]
§ 39-11-502. Ignorance or Mistake of Fact
Except in prosecutions for violations of §§ 39-13-504(a)(4) and 39-13-522, ignorance or mistake of fact is a defense to prosecution if the ignorance or mistake negates the culpable mental state of the charged offense. Although a person’s ignorance or mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, the person may be convicted […]
§ 39-11-503. Intoxication
Except as provided in subsection (c), intoxication itself is not a defense to prosecution for an offense. However, intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary, is admissible in evidence, if it is relevant to negate a culpable mental state. If recklessness establishes an element of an offense and the person is unaware of a risk because of […]