Mistakes of Fact/Law, Causation Flashcards
Mistake of Fact
General Rule: Mistake of fact is a defense if the mistake negates the relevant mens rea.
A mistake is not a defense if it makes the D just as culpable. (ex: I tried to poison him with cyanide but used arsenic instead, will not work).
Reasonableness of Mistake (MPC)
For subjective mental states, even an unreasonable mistake is a defense b/c it changes what’s subjectively in D’s head (See Navarro).
You only need a reasonable mistake where the mental state is objective (e.g. negligence).
Reasonableness of Mistake (CL)
Applies the same as MPC.
Specific Intent:
Unreasonable mistakes can always work b/c specific intent always requires knowledge/purpose
General Intent:
Unreasonable mistakes can only work for result elements, which requires recklessness.
Need REASONABLE mistakes for attendant circumstance elements, which require negligence.
Moral/Legal Wrong Doctrine
[Only seen in rare/historical cases] doctrine in which courts would reject a mistake of fact defense where the mistake involved the D still doing something immoral.
Lesser Legal Wrong Doctrine
Applies when D’s mistake of fact meant they actually committed some lesser crime.
CL: Under the Common Law, the Lesser Legal Wrong Doctrine bars a mistake of fact defense if the crime the defendant actually committed is more serious than the one they believed they were committing. The defendant is held liable for the more serious offense.
MPC: Allows D to rely on mistake of fact but either: (1) be convicted of the crime they committed but have the “grade and degree” [sentence] reduced to the crime he thought he was committing or (2) just convict you of the lesser crime.
Mistake of Law
General Rule: IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE!
You generally do not need to have prior knowledge that something is a crime to be charged with a crime.
Mistake of Law Exceptions
- Reasonable Reliance
- No Notice
- Knowledge of law is element of the offense
MOL Exception: Reasonable Reliance
Reasonable Reliance:
MOL is a defense if D reasonably relies on an
(1) an official interpretation of the law in statute, judicial opinion, administrative ruling, or other official interpretation AND
(2) the interpretation was made by someone legally charged with enforcing, administering, or interpreting the law.
Notes:
(1) cannot be an informal interpretation (e.g. judge in coffee shop); cannot be D’s own misinterpretation of the statute; official statement must actually authorize D’s conduct.
(2) This DOES NOT include a formal interpretation by someone not legally charged with the above (e.g. lawyers)
MOL Exception: No Notice
If there’s no notice of a crime, MOL is a defense. Either…
(1) the crime is not published or reasonably available (MPC 2.04(3)(a)); or
(2) The crime, like in Lambert:
a. involves an omission,
b. that is not inherently bad conduct, and
c. nothing put the defendant on notice of the duty
MOL Exception: It’s an Element
If the crime makes knowledge of the law an element of the offense, then even an unreasonable mistake of law is fine. (MPC 2.02(9)).
Causation
To be guilty of a RESULT crime, you need both cause in fact and proximate cause.
“But For” Cause in fact (usually)
In criminal context, cause in fact typically refers to “but for” causation.
Ask: but for the D’s conduct, would the result have occurred?
Caveat for death: ACCELERATING death which will already occur counts as but for causation.
“Substantial Factor” Cause in Fact (sometimes)
Only applies when there are multiple independent causes that are each sufficient to cause the result.
^ The only reason they are not but for causes themselves is because of the existence of the other independent causes.
Does not apply if one cause would be insufficient alone to cause result.
CL Proximate Cause
Analyze a series of “guidepost” factors, with a focus on foreseeability (Rideout).
CL Prox Cause: Foreseeability
Foreseeability turns on whether the intervention was coincidental or responsive.
Responsive: someone takes action in response to D’s behavior. Usually maintains causal chain UNLESS abnormal/unforeseeable. Ex: D stabs V to kill him, a bystander tries to carry V to the hospital but drops V down a flight of stairs, V dies from broken neck. D liable.
Coincidental: Person was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Usually breaks chain unless foreseeable.
Ex: D robs store, clerk panics and runs outside, a nearby driver has a seizure and runs into clerk on the sidewalk. D not liable for clerk’s injury.
CL Prox Cause: other “guideposts”
Apparent Safety: If victim reaches apparent safety from events caused by D, usually breaks chain to any events thereafter (Rideout).
Voluntary Human Intervention: Deliberate choices are more likely to break chain.
^Not complete rules, just “guideposts”
CL Prox Cause: Omissions
Omissions NEVER break chain, no matter how egregious.
Ex: If someone has duty to save V and doesn’t, D is still proximate cause
CL Prox Cause: Intended Consequences
If the consequences occur in the general manner generally intended, unlikely to break chain.
-Ex: D puts timebomb in V’s car, the bomb malfunctions and goes off early but still kills V
The more variance between intent and manner, the more likely to break the chain
-Ex: D poisons V’s food at restaurant, but before V eats it, waiter causes fire, killing V
De minimis contribution
Law will generally not treat very minor but-for causes as a proximate cause when responsibility can be attached to a far more substantial cause.
MPC Proximate Cause
GENERAL RULE (Purpose/Knowing): The harm that occurs must have been in the D’s contemplation and IF NOT, D is NOT the proximate cause
GENERAL RULE (Reckless/Negligent): The harm that occurs must have a risk the D was aware of (reckless) or should have been aware of (negligent) and IF NOT, D is NOT the proximate cause
Three Exceptions:
(1) Only difference is the person or property harmed
(2) Only difference is that the actual harm is less than what D expected
(3) The harm is the same type and manner contemplated/risked, but it is not too remote or accidental “to have a [just] bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of his offense.”
Concurrence of Elements
The elements of a crime (actus reus and mens rea) must occur together. It is not good enough that someone commits the AR and then later forms the MR, or vice versa.
