8. Specific Intent, General Intent, and Mistakes of Fact Flashcards
Specific intent
crimes that require proof of some kind of purpose or knowledge to commit the harm/act (must have behavior with state of mind)
o “with intent to…” “with the purpose of…” or “knowingly…”
General intent
either recklessness or negligence (recklessness in Cunningham-2 or negligence as in Faulkner-3)
Mistake of fact
objectively did the act, but mentally innocent because a mistake of fact
- Specific intent- defense if mistake is honest
- General intent- defense if mistake is honest and reasonable
o Recklessness- mistake must be non-recklessly formed - defendant does have some awareness of the risk and she does something (not as a reasonable person would, but something) to check out the risk and then decides that she’s safe to proceed
*To figure out which it is, look to the opinions to see what type of mistake is allowed
Green v. State
Specific intent crime – drove to woodland, killed several hogs, took the home, arrested and prosecuted for stealing hogs (hogs belonged to someone else)
- Larceny – 1. Take or carry away 2. Personal property of another 3. With intent to permanently deprive
- Defense – he had his own hogs running on the range, thought the ones he killed were his
- If he honestly thought the hogs were his, he didn’t have the intent to commit this specific intent crime of larceny
State v. Walker
- Charged with child abduction (a general intent crime)
- Abduction –
1. Taking/carrying away
2. Child
3. Without consent - Defendant abducted boy and girl in front of the school building, girl was later found walking back to school but boy was still missing
- Dismissed boy’s abduction because father of boy involved and given his consent
- Girl was unrelated but thought it was the granddaughter
- Mistake of fact would work if they showed it was honest and reasonable (made with good faith and due care)
US v. Oglivie
Married wife when stationed in Panama, husband moved away and she stayed, later she said she filed for divorce in Panama, thought they were divorced. He got his basic allowance for quarters terminated. Then remarried and reinstated his BAQ.
- His previous divorce was not final and he was convicted of bigamy and 2 counts of making a false statement
- False statement – specific intent crime (intent to deceive), said he made an honest mistake, exculpatory because he honestly believed he was divorced
- Bigamy – general intent crime, mistake was honest but was not reasonable because he didn’t take reasonable steps to determine the validity of divorce
US v. Yermian
- D knowingly made false statements on a security clearance form so that his answers would match false statements he made on his application for employment
- Said he didn’t know lies mattered within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of US
- Knowingly make false statements is specific intent
- BUT crime has general intent elements – as to jurisdictional elements, SC later said that jurisdictional elements are strict liability
- Mistake relevant was to general intent element, not reasonable, convicted
Another example of specific intent crime with general intent elements– burglary
- Burglary –
1. Break
2. Enter
3. Occupied structure
4. Or residence of another 5. At night - Specific intent as to break and enter, general intent as to other
Strict liability for grading elements
(difference between stealing jewelry and fencing it for $50 when its really worth $10k, still a crime under facts as he believed)
Strict liability for moral wrongs
- Statutory rape – sexual intercourse / with another / under age ___
- Strict liability as to age, no mistake is exculpatory as to age
- Tell if its strict liability by looking at the cases
o Ex: Regina v. Prince - any unmarried girl under the age of 16 years… - defense: thought she was 18. SL because D’s behavior morally wrong even if girl was 18
