Mistake Flashcards
CL Mistake of Fact
A reasonable mistake of fact will absolve a defendant of criminal liability if it negates the mens rea required for the crime.
Never a defense to strict liability.
MPC Mistake of Fact
A mistake of fact will absolve a defendant of criminal liability if it negates the mens rea required for the crime.
Even an unreasonable mistake will absolve defendant if specific intent crime.
A defendant whose mistake negates the mens rea for a crime can nonetheless be guilty of a different crime, if the defendant’s conduct would have been a crime had the facts been as she supposed. But, the defendant cannot be convicted of a crime more serious than the crime the defendant would have committed had the facts been as she supposes.
Mistake of Law
A mistake of law occurs if the defendant mistakenly believes that his conduct is not a crime. With narrow exceptions, mistake of law is not recognized as a defense.
Mistake of Law Exceptions
Reasonable reliance on a statute, court decision, or official interpretation of the law. Law was not reasonably available to the defendant. Federal Tax laws
Law not Reasonably Available to the Defendant
A defendant’s mistake of law can be a defense if the relevant law has not been generally published or otherwise made reasonably available to the defendant. (all jdx)
Reasonable Reliance on a Statute or Court Decision
A defendant’s mistake of law can be a defense if the defendant reasonably relied on a statute or court decision that is later held invalid. (Both MPC and SS)
Reasonable Reliance on an Official Interpretation of the Law.
A defendant’s mistake of law can be a defense if the defendant reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law by the government agency or official responsible for enforcing or administering that law. This defense does not extend to reliance on the advice of a private attorney, even if it is reasonable. (Both MPC and SS)
Federal Tax Laws
The general rule is that ignorance or mistake of law does not negate guilt. Because certain tax rules are obtuse, congress softened the impact of that rule by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses.
Willfulness = “voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty”
Thus, willfulness requires the gov’t to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.”
See Cheek
Marrerro
Marrero (guard at fed prison) was arrested because she had a unlicensed, loaded gun in her possession while at a night club
Marrero believed that NY Penal Law § 265.20(a)(1) made her exempt from the firearm possession statute because she was a guard at a federal prison, but New York interpreted the definition of peace officers to only extend to state guards.
Holding: to admit the excuse at all would be to encourage ignorance where the law-maker has determined to make men know and obey
Navarro
Specific intent crimes require a person to possess a particularized mental intent. If, due to one’s honest mistake of fact, a person is incapable of possessing a specified mental intent, that person cannot be guilty of that crime.
If Navarro in good faith believed the wood beams were his, regardless of whether that belief was reasonable, he was incapable of formulating the specific intent required for the crime of theft. Since an essential element of the crime is not established, Navarro cannot be guilty.
Elemental Mistake Analysis
(1) Specific versus General Intent crime?
(2) If specific intent, defendant should only be acquitted if the mistake of fact negates the specific intent portion of the statute.
(3) If general intent, look at culpability. Did the defendant act with a morally blameworthy state of mind?
(a) If the mistake was unreasonable, then the defendant acted with a culpable state of mind and should be convicted/
(b) If the mistake was reasonable, then the defendant is entitled to the defense.
