mens rea / mistake of fact law Flashcards
General v specific intent crimes
General Intent
elements of crime are only actions
the only required mens rea is the intent to undertake the elemental actions
ex., murder: it doesn’t matter why one kills
Specific Intent
a specific intent is listed as an element of the crime
the elemental actions must be undertaken with a specific purpose/intent in mind
ex., burglary: the breaking & entering must be with the purpose of committing a felony
mistake of fact mens rea - common law
Mistake of fact was a defense if:
1. Defendant was actually mistaken about a fact.
2. The defendant’s mistake was reasonable.
3. The conduct would have been legal had the state off acts been as the defendant believed them to be
. #2 was not needed to defend against a specific intent crime.
DPP v Morgan UKHL 1975
Legally required intent: have sex with victim without her consent
Δs claimed lack of intent: they believed that she had consented
they were operating under mistaken facts as they then presently existed
Legal question: Even if Δs were honestly mistaken, does the mistake have to be a reasonable mistake?
Morgan consequences
If reasonableness of mistake is required, Δ can be convicted :
with an honest, but irrational, mind
for something he had no intent to do
If reasonableness of mistake is not required:
victim gets little comfort from the thought that she was attacked by irrational men
irrational behavior might be encouraged
US v Short USMCA 1954
Legally required intent: assault with intent to rape
Mistaken factual assumption: Δ thought victim was a prostitute who consented
Dissent argues: this is a specific intent crime
Why should that matter
? One can’t undertake purposive, intentional, action if one is ignorant of facts necessary to form that intent
Mistake of law / common law
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Everyone is presumed to know the law.
Legal fiction was necessary, otherwise everyone would deliberately keep themselves in ignorance.
Because of this harsh rule, it was important to distinguish between law and fact.
Marrero NY 1987
Δ misread a statute that prohibited carrying a handgun
Ct. relies on precedent from two different case—Gardner& Weiss—to distinguish when mistake of law can serve as a defense to negate mens rea
. Uses the mala in se/mala prohibita distinction.
On which side does Δ’s conduct fall?
Exception: where Δ attempts to learn the law from an official source—a public body—and gets mistaken advice
Lambert Cal 1957
Statute required police registration for any convicted person to reside in Los Angeles
Δ, a convicted felon, failed to register as required by statute.
Ct. holds “actual knowledge of the duty to register or proof of the probability of such knowledge” is necessary before conviction under the statute.
14th Amendment Due Process holding.
