Mistake of Fact - Revision history

Durankar: /* United States */

2010-12-07T10:48:26Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:48, 7 December 2010
Line 23:		Line 23:
	The U.S. generally allows the defendant to put forth a mistake of fact defense either under common law or through a statute, depending on the jurisdiction.		The U.S. generally allows the defendant to put forth a mistake of fact defense either under common law or through a statute, depending on the jurisdiction.

	For specific intent offenses, a defendant can avoid criminal liability if his mistake of fact negates the specific intent element of the crime, specifically if he lacks the intent designated by statute. The burden of proof is on the defense to submit sufficient evidence to show that the mistake of fact negated the requisite mens rea of the offense. For general intent crimes, which require only the intent to act in a certain way regardless of criminal intent, the general rule is that a mistake of fact must be reasonable to excuse criminal liability. Under the legal-wrong doctrine, however, the mistake of fact defense will not work if the defendant’s conduct would still be illegal even if the facts were as the defendant thought them to be. Similar, but less widely accepted is the moral-wrong doctrine, which disallows a mistake of fact defense if the defendant’s conduct was morally wrong even if the facts were as the defendant thought them to be.<ref>http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim17.htm</ref>		For specific intent offenses, a defendant can avoid criminal liability if his mistake of fact negates the specific intent element of the crime, specifically if he lacks the intent designated by statute. The burden of proof is on the defense to submit sufficient evidence to show that the mistake of fact negated the requisite mens rea of the offense. For general intent crimes, which require only the intent to act in a certain way regardless of criminal intent, the general rule is that a mistake of fact must be reasonable to excuse criminal liability. Under the legal-wrong doctrine, however, the mistake of fact defense will not work if the defendant’s conduct would still be illegal even if the facts were as the defendant thought them to be. Similar, but less widely accepted, is the moral-wrong doctrine, which disallows a mistake of fact defense if the defendant’s conduct was morally wrong even if the facts were as the defendant thought them to be.<ref>http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim17.htm</ref>

	Strict liability crimes, such as bans on toxic dumping or the sale of alcohol to minors, lack a mens rea element. Thus, a mistake of fact defense cannot be asserted to avoid criminal liability for violation of a strict liability crime.<ref>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mistake+of+Fact</ref>		Strict liability crimes, such as bans on toxic dumping or the sale of alcohol to minors, lack a mens rea element. Thus, a mistake of fact defense cannot be asserted to avoid criminal liability for violation of a strict liability crime.<ref>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mistake+of+Fact</ref>

Durankar: /* United States */

2010-12-07T10:46:55Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:46, 7 December 2010
Line 21:		Line 21:
	== United States ==		== United States ==

	The U.S. generally allows the defendant to put forth a mistake of fact defense either under common law or ~~the Model Penal Code~~, depending on the jurisdiction.		The U.S. generally allows the defendant to put forth a mistake of fact defense either under common law or through a statute, depending on the jurisdiction.

	For specific intent offenses, a defendant can avoid criminal liability if his mistake of fact negates the specific intent element of the crime, specifically if he lacks the intent designated by statute. The burden of proof is on the defense to submit sufficient evidence to show that the mistake of fact negated the requisite mens rea of the offense. For general intent crimes, which require only the intent to act in a certain way regardless of criminal intent, the general rule is that a mistake of fact must be reasonable to excuse criminal liability. Under the legal-wrong doctrine, however, the mistake of fact defense will not work if the defendant’s conduct would still be illegal even if the facts were as the defendant thought them to be. Similar but less widely accepted is the moral-wrong doctrine, which disallows a mistake of fact defense if the defendant’s conduct was morally wrong even if the facts were as the defendant thought them to be.<ref>http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim17.htm</ref>		For specific intent offenses, a defendant can avoid criminal liability if his mistake of fact negates the specific intent element of the crime, specifically if he lacks the intent designated by statute. The burden of proof is on the defense to submit sufficient evidence to show that the mistake of fact negated the requisite mens rea of the offense. For general intent crimes, which require only the intent to act in a certain way regardless of criminal intent, the general rule is that a mistake of fact must be reasonable to excuse criminal liability. Under the legal-wrong doctrine, however, the mistake of fact defense will not work if the defendant’s conduct would still be illegal even if the facts were as the defendant thought them to be. Similar, but less widely accepted is the moral-wrong doctrine, which disallows a mistake of fact defense if the defendant’s conduct was morally wrong even if the facts were as the defendant thought them to be.<ref>http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim17.htm</ref>

	Strict liability crimes, ~~those that are designed to protect public welfare~~ such as bans on toxic dumping or the sale of alcohol to minors, lack a mens rea element. A mistake of fact defense cannot be asserted to avoid criminal liability for violation of a strict liability crime.<ref>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mistake+of+Fact</ref>		Strict liability crimes, such as bans on toxic dumping or the sale of alcohol to minors, lack a mens rea element. Thus, a mistake of fact defense cannot be asserted to avoid criminal liability for violation of a strict liability crime.<ref>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mistake+of+Fact</ref>

	The Model Penal Code § 2.04(1) provides that a mistake is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any element of the offense. However, the mistake of fact defense is not available to a defendant who is still guilty of another offense had the circumstances been as he supposed.<ref>Model Penal Code § 2.04(1), available at http://law.fordham.edu/assets/Faculty/model_penal_code_selected_sections(1).pdf</ref>		The Model Penal Code § 2.04(1) provides that a mistake is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any element of the offense. However, the mistake of fact defense is not available to a defendant who is still guilty of another offense had the circumstances been as he supposed.<ref>Model Penal Code § 2.04(1), available at http://law.fordham.edu/assets/Faculty/model_penal_code_selected_sections(1).pdf</ref>

Durankar: /* Sri Lanka */

2010-12-07T10:38:40Z

Sri Lanka

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 7 December 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:
	== Sri Lanka ==		== Sri Lanka ==

	The Penal Code provides for a mistake of fact defence, excusing criminal liability for an action by a person who in good faith and by mistake of fact believes himself to be either bound by law<ref>Penal Code § 69 (No. 2 of 1883), available at http://www.lawnet.lk/process.php?st=2001Y1V19C&hword=%27%27&path=5</ref> or justified by law<ref>Penal Code § 72</ref> to perform said action. The mistake of fact defence has been used to avoid conviction on statutory offences that do not require a mens rea element, so long as the defendant can put forth sufficient facts to carry his burden of showing an honest mistake of fact in the case.<ref>See, e.g., Perera v. Munaweera [1955], NLR 433 of 56, available at http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/case_law/nlr/common/html/NLR56V433.htm</ref>		The Penal Code provides for a mistake of fact defence, excusing criminal liability for an action by a person who in good faith and by mistake of fact believes himself to be either bound by law<ref>Penal Code § 69 (No. 2 of 1883), available at http://www.lawnet.lk/process.php?st=2001Y1V19C&hword=%27%27&path=5</ref> or justified by law<ref>Penal Code § 72</ref> to perform said action. The mistake of fact defence has been used to avoid conviction on statutory offences that do not require a [[Mens Rea (Culpable Mental State)\|mens rea]] element, so long as the defendant can put forth sufficient facts to carry his burden of showing an honest mistake of fact in the case.<ref>See, e.g., Perera v. Munaweera [1955], NLR 433 of 56, available at http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/case_law/nlr/common/html/NLR56V433.htm</ref>

	== United States ==		== United States ==

Durankar: /* Specific Country Applications */

2010-12-07T10:36:09Z

Specific Country Applications

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:36, 7 December 2010
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Unlike a [[Mistake of Law]] defense, a mistake of fact defense can sometimes exculpate a defendant from criminal liability for his criminal actions where the defense can show that the mistake of fact negated the requisite mens rea of the crime. If mens rea is not an element of the crime, such as in strict liability crimes, the mistake of fact defense is not available.		Unlike a [[Mistake of Law]] defense, a mistake of fact defense can sometimes exculpate a defendant from criminal liability for his criminal actions where the defense can show that the mistake of fact negated the requisite mens rea of the crime. If mens rea is not an element of the crime, such as in strict liability crimes, the mistake of fact defense is not available.

	~~= Specific Country Applications =~~

	== International Law ==
			= International Law =

	The [[Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court]] provides for a limited mistake of fact defense. Article 32(1) reads:		The [[Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court]] provides for a limited mistake of fact defense. Article 32(1) reads:
Line 12:		Line 12:

	The mistake of fact must be shown to negate the requisite mens rea element of an international criminal charge in order to be effective.		The mistake of fact must be shown to negate the requisite mens rea element of an international criminal charge in order to be effective.

			= Specific Country Applications =

	== Sri Lanka ==		== Sri Lanka ==

Ibjadmin: /* Notes */

2010-11-12T13:44:26Z

Notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 12 November 2010
Line 30:		Line 30:

	= Notes =		= Notes =

	<references/>		<references/>

	~~See [[Defenses]]~~

Ibjadmin: /* United States */

2010-11-12T13:44:17Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 12 November 2010
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Strict liability crimes, those that are designed to protect public welfare such as bans on toxic dumping or the sale of alcohol to minors, lack a mens rea element. A mistake of fact defense cannot be asserted to avoid criminal liability for violation of a strict liability crime.<ref>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mistake+of+Fact</ref>		Strict liability crimes, those that are designed to protect public welfare such as bans on toxic dumping or the sale of alcohol to minors, lack a mens rea element. A mistake of fact defense cannot be asserted to avoid criminal liability for violation of a strict liability crime.<ref>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mistake+of+Fact</ref>

	The Model Penal Code § 2.04(1) provides that a mistake is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any element of the offense. However, the mistake of fact defense is not available to a defendant who is still guilty of another offense had the circumstances been as he supposed.<ref>Model Penal Code § 2.04(1), available at http://law.fordham.edu/assets/Faculty/model_penal_code_selected_sections(1).pdf</ref>		The Model Penal Code § 2.04(1) provides that a mistake is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any element of the offense. However, the mistake of fact defense is not available to a defendant who is still guilty of another offense had the circumstances been as he supposed.<ref>Model Penal Code § 2.04(1), available at http://law.fordham.edu/assets/Faculty/model_penal_code_selected_sections(1).pdf</ref>
			----
			See [[Defenses]]

	= Notes =		= Notes =

Eric.n.feldman at 09:04, 3 November 2010

2010-11-03T09:04:14Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-This is a defense only if the mistake shows that the defendant did not have the state of mind required for the crime.  Thus for crimes where no state of mind is required, mistake is no defense.  For example, imagine that a person lawfully hunting in the woods shoots at what he reasonably believes is a deer, but the deer is in fact a person whom he kills.  That is an example of mistake of fact.  The mistake of fact establishes that the person did not have the state of mind required for murder and should be able to avoid conviction.
+= Background =
-For general intent crimes, the mistake must be reasonable, that is the type of mistake that a reasonable person would have made under the circumstances.
+Unlike a [[Mistake of Law]] defense, a mistake of fact defense can sometimes exculpate a defendant from criminal liability for his criminal actions where the defense can show that the mistake of fact negated the requisite mens rea of the crime.  If mens rea is not an element of the crime, such as in strict liability crimes, the mistake of fact defense is not available.
-For specific intent crimes where the defendant must have the specific intent to commit the crime and the consequences, any mistake, whether reasonable or not, is a defense.
+= Specific Country Applications =
 See [[Defenses]]

Ibjadmin: /* Defenses */

2010-06-08T20:16:35Z

Defenses

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:16, 8 June 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	For specific intent crimes where the defendant must have the specific intent to commit the crime and the consequences, any mistake, whether reasonable or not, is a defense.		For specific intent crimes where the defendant must have the specific intent to commit the crime and the consequences, any mistake, whether reasonable or not, is a defense.

	~~== Defenses ==~~		See [[Defenses]]

	~~'''Table of Contents'''~~

	~~===Procedural Defenses===~~
	* [[Double jeopardy]]
	*[[ Statutory Limitation]]
	*[[ Lack of jurisdiction]]
	* [[Entrapment]]
	* [[~~Procedural defects]]~~
	* [[Motion to suppress]]
	*[[ Immunity and Public Authority]]

	~~===Normal~~ Defenses~~===~~
	* [[Self-Defense]]
	* [[Defense of others]]
	* [[Defense of property]]
	* [[Mental Incapacity]]
	* [[Alibi]]
	* [[Necessity]]
	* [[Duress]]
	* [[Physical Impossibility]]
	* [[Mistake of Law]]
	* [[Mistake of Fact]]
	* [[Mistake of identity]]
	* [[Consent]]
	* [[Lack of intent]]
	* [[Maltreated Women Syndrome]]
	*[[ Intoxication]]
	* [[Criminal act with Sincere Intent]]

Ddemetriou at 13:20, 31 May 2010

2010-05-31T13:20:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:20, 31 May 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	For specific intent crimes where the defendant must have the specific intent to commit the crime and the consequences, any mistake, whether reasonable or not, is a defense.		For specific intent crimes where the defendant must have the specific intent to commit the crime and the consequences, any mistake, whether reasonable or not, is a defense.

			== Defenses ==

			'''Table of Contents'''

			===Procedural Defenses===
			* [[Double jeopardy]]
			*[[ Statutory Limitation]]
			*[[ Lack of jurisdiction]]
			* [[Entrapment]]
			* [[Procedural defects]]
			* [[Motion to suppress]]
			*[[ Immunity and Public Authority]]

			===Normal Defenses===
			* [[Self-Defense]]
			* [[Defense of others]]
			* [[Defense of property]]
			* [[Mental Incapacity]]
			* [[Alibi]]
			* [[Necessity]]
			* [[Duress]]
			* [[Physical Impossibility]]
			* [[Mistake of Law]]
			* [[Mistake of Fact]]
			* [[Mistake of identity]]
			* [[Consent]]
			* [[Lack of intent]]
			* [[Maltreated Women Syndrome]]
			*[[ Intoxication]]
			* [[Criminal act with Sincere Intent]]

Ddemetriou: Created page with 'This is a defense only if the mistake shows that the defendant did not have the state of mind required for the crime. Thus for crimes where no state of mind is required, mistake�'

2010-04-07T14:54:25Z

Created page with 'This is a defense only if the mistake shows that the defendant did not have the state of mind required for the crime. Thus for crimes where no state of mind is required, mistake�'

New page

This is a defense only if the mistake shows that the defendant did not have the state of mind required for the crime. Thus for crimes where no state of mind is required, mistake is no defense. For example, imagine that a person lawfully hunting in the woods shoots at what he reasonably believes is a deer, but the deer is in fact a person whom he kills. That is an example of mistake of fact. The mistake of fact establishes that the person did not have the state of mind required for murder and should be able to avoid conviction.

For general intent crimes, the mistake must be reasonable, that is the type of mistake that a reasonable person would have made under the circumstances.

For specific intent crimes where the defendant must have the specific intent to commit the crime and the consequences, any mistake, whether reasonable or not, is a defense.