mistake of fact
the ∆ misunderstood some fact that negates an element of the crime or lessens the criminality of the act
mistake of law
∆ misunderstood meaning of the law by either thinking it didn’t apply to them or a key piece of it was misunderstood
ignorance of law
∆ didn’t know the law existed at all
is mistake of fact a defense?
sometimes. if honestly held, then the culpability may be impacted. it’s essentially a MR defense
is mistake of law or ignorance of law a defense?
never. would encourage lawlessness. can defend by:
- proving something under MPC 2.03
- showing the law was obscure and it was a due process violation
steps to determine the mens rea and mistake relationship
- define the MR necessary to have a crime
- does the mistake in question negate that?
- what evidence do you have of the mistake?
- does this mistake raise reasonable doubt?
mistake of fact for purposely, knowingly, or reckless MR crimes
any honest mistake about the action in question is a mistake of fact excuse
mistake of fact for negligent MR crimes
any honest and reasonable mistake about the action in question is a mistake of fact excuse
mistake of fact regarding strict liability crimes
no excuses allowed
what are affirmative defenses for mistake of law?
- reasonable reliance on an official statement of law that was later changed or deemed invalid (ex: if all of a sudden it was illegal to file taxes)
- publication of a law was inadequate (due process issue)
malum prohibitum
the offense itself makes it wrong
malum in se
an act is obviously wrong
mistakes of fact resulting in a different crime than intended
the ct has to treat the crime as the crime intended
willfullness
requires that:
1. government proves that law imposed a duty on ∆. and
2. ∆ knew of duty, and
3. ∆ voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty
does willfulness require reasonableness?
no
cheek v united states
F: ∆ didn’t think the law required him to pay taxes. original jury told honest and unreasonable belief doesn’t negate willfulness
Q: was this improper instruction?
A: yes
Why?: if knowledge of law is an element, ignorance of law is a defense. willfulness requires awareness of the law, not reasonableness
moral wrong doctrine
even if actor’s mistake of fact was reasonable, intentionally doing an immoral act gives conviction
legal wrong doctrine
∆’s conduct based on mistake of fact constitutes a crime
people v navarro
F: ∆ took 4 wooden beams -> thought that he could. jury instruction was the good faith belief of abandoned property and objective reasonable
Q: whether conviction was proper
A: no
Why?: state failed to prove ∆ had specific intent to steal, even is ∆’s good faith belief was unreasonable
people v marrero
F: ∆ was a prison guard and thought that the law allowed him to carry a gun (peace officer) -> mistake of law
Q: whether ∆ misunderstanding of statute can be a viable defense?
A: no
Why?: the defense wouldn’t apply because it can allow people to interpret laws to defense themselves
