Which of the following represents a situation where ordinary defense might be used?

The concept of ordinary defense typically refers to circumstances where the defendant is arguing that their actions were justified under the law, mainly because of a misunderstanding or lack of intent to commit a crime. In the context of a case of mistaken identity, the defendant may assert that they were wrongly accused of a crime they did not commit and that the circumstances surrounding their arrest were misinterpreted.

In a case of mistaken identity, it is not that the individual is denying the crime outright but instead arguing that they were not the person who committed the crime. This defense hinges on establishing that the evidence against them is flawed due to the mix-up in their identity, which can play a vital role in the legal proceedings.

On the other hand, self-defense is typically seen as a justifiable reason to commit an act that would otherwise be considered illegal, focused more on the necessity of protecting oneself from imminent harm. Duress involves a situation where someone commits a crime because they are being compelled to do so under threat, which is not reflective of ordinary defense either. Finally, a defendant admitting to the crime does not represent a situation where ordinary defense can be invoked, as it acknowledges the act rather than contesting it through claims of wrongful accusation or misapprehension.