Mental State & Mistake of Fact Flashcards
MPC - When is mistake of fact a defense?
Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if:
A. the ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense; or
B. the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.
** If the mistake of fact negates mens rea needed for the crime or if the statute provides that the mens rea created by the mistake constitutes a defense**
MPC - Mistake of fact defense for lesser crimes
Although ignorance or mistake would otherwise afford a defense to the offense charged, the defense is not available if the defendant would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed.
In such case, however, the ignorance or mistake of the defendant shall reduce the grade and degree of the offense of that he may be convicted to those of that he would be guilty had the situation been as he supposed.
Specific intent crime
What type of mistake needed for mistake of fact defense?
Must be an HONEST mistake
General intent crime
What type of mistake needed for mistake of fact defense?
Must be an HONEST AND REASONABLE mistake
Strict liability crime
What type of mistake needed for mistake of fact defense?
Mistake of fact is NOT A DEFENSE
D ripped gas meter from gas pipes and stole it. D did not turn off the gas, gas leaked and endangered the life of his mother-in-law living next door.
DId D maliciously adminster gas to MIL?
- Regina v. Cunningham
- Rejected idea that “malicious” requirement meant that D had to have acted wickedly
- Requires either:
- Actual intent to cause the harm
- Recklessness as to whether the harm should occur or not (foreseeing the risk and taking the risk anyway)
D stole rum from hold of ship, lit match so he could see better. Rum caught fire, fire spread, and ship was destroyed.
Did D maliciously set fire to ship?
- Regina v. Faulkner
- Trial court used “wicked” definition of malicious - if he was stealing rum, then he was wicked and fire was malicious even if unintentional or unforeseen
- Appellate court rejected and required intentional/reckless definition to be applied
D was captain of Exxon Valdez oil tanker. Ran aground, spilling 11 million gallons of oil into ocean. Charged w/ misdemeanor for negligently releasing oil into ocean - but what standard of negligence to apply?
- State v. Hazlewood
- Applied civil standard for negligence, not criminal standard requiring a gross deviation from reasonable conduct
- ANOMALY - Criminal standard basically always applies - needed to hold someone publicly accountable in this case
- Key takeaway: Courts have a ton of discretion in interpretation when the statute is silent or does not give language to explain
D cut nephew’s neck with a knife during altercation. Convicted of child abuse for negligently causing a child to be place in a sitution where life was endangered. Standard for negligence? Why?
- Santillanes v. New Mexico
- Criminal standard for negligence applied - gross deviation
- When attaching harsh social and moral condemnation to the crime, the crime must reflect a mental state warranting such contempt
Wife left D, D started posted threats on FB towards her - threatening songs, poems etc.
Statute made “any communication containing any threat…to injure the person of another” a crime but had no mens rea element - did D have to know comm was threatening?
- Elonis v. US
- The fact that statute doesn’t include mens rea element doesn’t mean none exists
- P argued that it was sufficient if reasonable person considered the posts to be a threat
- D argued he had to have intended to make threats
- Court decided reasonable person / negligent mens rea was insufficient to be liable for crime
- (same as MPC - negligence not enough for crime unless prescribed by statute)
D took unmarried girl under 16 out of the possession and against the will of her father. Girl was 14, but D honestly believed she was 18.
Does mistake negate mens rea to commit crime?
- Regina v. Prince
- Moral wrong principle - D still took a girl from her father’s possession against his will
- Committed a wrong and did so at the risk she was under 16 and therefore was committing a crime
- Different if he had mistakenly thought she was not in her father’s possession or that he had his permission - would not have been wrong
D convicted of possessing drugs within 300 feet of school. D argued he didn’t know he was near a school - did he have mens rea for the crime?
- State v. Benniefield
- Court held he only had to know he was in possession of drugs - did not need to know he was near a school
- When statute is silent on mens rea, read into it the men rea required to separate wrongful from innocent conduct
- If he knew he was near a school, but didn’t know someone had slipped drugs in his pocket, he wouldn’t have thought he was doing anything wrong at all
D had sex with 13 year old girl. Girl told him she was 16 and looked like she was 16. Statute made it a crime to commit lewd and lascivious act with child under 14 but allowed probation for an honest and reasonable belief that child was over 14.
Mistake of fact defense?
- People v. Olsen
- Lesser crime principle - even if she was 16, she was underage (under 18) so he still committed a crime
- Statute does not allow mistake of fact as a defense because it allows probation as the punishment for an honest and reasonable mistake of fact
- (Wouldn’t need probation if MoF got you off the crime)
- Public policy to protect children under 14
15 year old boy kept asking 13 year old girl for oral sex. Boy charged with inciting a child under 14 to commit act of gross indecency. Boy honestly believed girl was 14. Statute included no mens rea. Mistake of fact defense?
- B. v. Director of Public Prosecutions
- An honest belief that a person is of legal age negates the mens rea to commit a crime
- Rejects reasoning in Regina v. Prince which didn’t allow mistake of fact re age as a defense
Retarded D with IQ of 52 and social age of 11 or 12. Had sex with 13 year old, charged with rape. Believed she was 16.
- Garnett v. State
- MD case that holds statutory rape is strict liability crime that does not allow mistake of fact defense
