Legal Definitions - complete defense

A complete defense is a legal argument or set of facts presented by a defendant that, if successfully proven, entirely defeats the plaintiff's or prosecutor's claim. When a complete defense is established, it means the defendant is absolved of all legal responsibility or liability for the alleged wrongdoing. This differs from a partial defense, which might only reduce the severity of a charge or the amount of damages owed, but does not eliminate liability altogether. Complete defenses are applicable in both civil lawsuits and criminal proceedings.

• Example 1: Self-Defense in a Criminal Case

  Imagine a situation where an individual, Sarah, is charged with assault after physically confronting another person, Mark. Sarah claims that Mark initiated the altercation by threatening her with a weapon, and she only used necessary force to protect herself from immediate harm. If Sarah can successfully present evidence and convince the court that she acted purely in self-defense, using reasonable force proportionate to the threat, then self-defense would serve as a complete defense. This would lead to her being found not guilty of assault, entirely absolving her of criminal liability for the incident.

• Example 2: Statute of Limitations in a Civil Case

  Consider a scenario where a business, "Tech Innovations Inc.," is sued by a former client, "Global Solutions LLC," for an alleged breach of a software development contract. However, the contract was breached eight years ago, and the state law specifies a six-year statute of limitations for bringing such claims. Tech Innovations Inc. could raise the statute of limitations as a complete defense. If the court determines that Global Solutions LLC filed its lawsuit after the legally prescribed time limit had expired, the entire claim would be dismissed, regardless of the original merits of the contract dispute. Tech Innovations Inc. would bear no liability.

• Example 3: Truth as a Defense in a Defamation Lawsuit

  Suppose a local newspaper publishes an investigative report alleging that a prominent city council member misused public funds for personal gain. The council member then sues the newspaper for defamation, claiming the article is false and has severely damaged their reputation. If the newspaper can present irrefutable evidence, such as financial records and witness testimonies, proving that the council member did indeed misuse public funds as reported, then "truth" would act as a complete defense. Even if the article caused significant reputational harm, the newspaper would not be held liable for defamation because the published statements were factually accurate.