Justification a Defense; Civil Remedies Not Impaired by Article

(a) In a prosecution for an offense, justification as defined in this Article is a defense. (b) The fact that conduct is justifiable under this Article does not abolish or impair any remedy for such conduct which is available in any civil action. SOURCE: *M.P.C. § 3.01; Cal. § 605 (1971); Mass. ch. 263, § 32(a); N.J. § 2C:3-1. CROSS-REFERENCES: § 7.55(c); § 85.22, Code of Criminal Procedure. 2024 NOTE: Past publications include the following COMMENT referring to “8 GCA (Criminal Procedure) § 85.22”; in the 1977 Criminal and Correctional Code hardcover, the COMMENT refers to “Section 85.22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” However, this reference may be a typographical error, as neither Title 8 GCA nor the former Code of Criminal Procedure (codified as Guam Penal Code Part II) includes § 85.22 that defines “affirmative defense.” COMMENT: Subsection (a) of § 7.78 makes clear that justification is a defense, but not an “affirmative defense” and when raised as a defense and at trial the prosecution has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt. Justification is not, as stated, an “affirmative defense” as provided in 8 GCA (Criminal Procedure) § 85.22. This is consistent with all of the sources above. The M.P.C. and N.J. referred to it as an “affirmative defense;” however, the term is used differently there than here. All four sources place the burden on the prosecution to disprove the defense. Subsection (b) merely states that this Code, by creating certain justifications, does not affect or attempt to affect the civil liability of the actor. However, it is quite possible that the justifications described here are also justifications against civil liability.