I.

CL APPROACH TO MISTAKE OF FACT

\
General Intent Specific Intent Strict Liability
Culpability approach: Does the mistake relate to the Mistake NEVER a defense
specific intent portion? (Garnett)

Is mistake unreasonable? Yes: Elemental approach.

Does it negate the specific
No defense. intent required?
(Navarro)
Is mistake reasonable?
Yes, defense. NO: analyze as general intent.

But occasionally, even if the

mistake is reasonable:

1. Moral wrong doctrine: If

circumstances were as
defendant believed them to be,
and his conduct would have
been morally wrong, then can
be convicted for the actual
harm. [Regina v. Prince]

2. Legal wrong doctrine: If

conduct would be unlawful if
the circumstances were as
actor believed them to be, then
guilty of the actual harm that
occurred.

[MPC 2.04(2): legal wrong

doctrine, but defendant will be
liable for the lesser harm that
would have occurred had the
circumstances been as he
believed them to be.]
MPC: Elemental approach to mistake of fact: if it negatives purpose, knowledge, belief,
recklessness, or negligence required for the offense, then it is a defense. But see 2.04(2)
for legal wrong limitation.

II. CL APPROACH TO MISTAKE OF LAW

General Intent Specific Intent Strict liability

General rule: Does the mistake of law relate Never a defense

Mistake/Ignorance of Law is to the specific intent portion?
NOT a defense.
Yes. Then must be genuine,
2 Exceptions: but doesn’t have to be
reasonable. (Cheek).
1. Reasonable reliance or
entrapment by estoppel.
(LOOK AT MPC 2.04)
See Marrero for what did NOT
qualify as reliance on an
official statement of the law (it
was his own personal
misinterpretation of the statute)

2. Fair notice or Lambert

principle

MPC: Mistake of law is a defense if negatives the required mental state (2.04(1)(a)),
with the same limitation of 2.04(2), OR if the statute is unknown to actor and has not
been published (2.04(3)(a)); OR actor acts in reasonable reliance on an official statement
of the law, later determined to be erroneous. (2.04(3)(b)).

Note: MPC does not make the distinction between general intent and specific intent
offenses, but notice that the MPC and the CL will have the same result when dealing with
a specific intent crime.

But notice the different result when dealing with a general intent crime, especially where
there is a mistake of fact. Generally, the CL will require a mistake to be reasonable,
meaning that a negligent state of mind with respect to the mistake will suffice for
criminal liability to attach (a morally blameworthy/culpable manner). The MPC will
require at least recklessness with respect to the mistake, unless the statute only requires
negligence. In other words, the MPC takes an elemental approach, even when dealing
with a general intent crime, and since the MPC requires at least recklessness to be proved
(unless negligence is the specified required mental state), negligence with respect to the
mistake would not suffice for liability to attach.

III. MISTAKE OF FACT/LAW

One more way to think about this, by focusing initially on type of offense, and then on
type of mistake, if necessary: Note that when dealing with specific intent or strict
liability offenses, the answer is the same for both mistake of law and fact. You have
differentiate between the two types of mistakes when you are dealing with a general
intent crime.

General intent Specific intent Strict liability

Mistake of fact Mistake of fact or law: Mistake of fact or law:
Defense IF the mistake NEVER a defense
1. Unreasonable: no relates to the specific intent
defense portion of the offense. (If
2. Reasonable: Usually a not, then analyze the
defense…unless… mistake as general intent)

1. moral wrong
2. Legal wrong

Mistake of Law

Generally: NO EXCUSE!

2 exceptions:
1. Reasonable reliance on
official statement
(entrapment by estoppel)

2. Fair notice/Lambert
principle