FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 252
Go to Volume 11 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 252 Table of Contents

252.8 Mistake Of Fact

    252.8.2 Whether Mistake Of Fact Must Be Reasonable

    252.8.2.1 Mistake Of Fact: Criticism Of Requirement That Mistake Be Reasonable
    252.8.2.2 Mistake: Unconstitutional To Require Reasonable Mistake Where Offense Requires Recklessness Or Higher Culpability
    252.8.2.3 Unreasonable Mistake May Negate Criminal Intent Or Mental State
    252.8.2.4 Mistake: Reasonable Belief Standard Requires Consideration Of A Reasonable Person In Defendant's Situation

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 252

    See FORECITE National™ 252.8.2.3 [Unreasonable Mistake May Negate Criminal Intent Or Mental State].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 252

    252.8.2.2    Mistake: Unconstitutional To Require Reasonable Mistake Where Offense Requires Recklessness Or Higher Culpability

PRACTICE NOTE: The effect of requiring a reasonable mistake where the offense definition requires recklessness, or any form of higher culpability, is to reduce the mental element from recklessness to negligence since a mistake is not reasonable if it is a result of negligence. (See Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (West, 1984) § 62(c)(2); id., (2000-2001 Pocket Part) § 62(c)(2) fn. 2, p. 34-35 [barring a defense for mistakes negating an offense element].)  However, this limitation may implicate the federal constitutional rights to due process, trial by jury, and compulsory process because it precludes the jurors from considering evidence negating an element of the charge and permits conviction without a finding that all elements of the crime have been proved.  (Ibid.)

    For example, in Laseter v. State (AK 1984) 684 P2d 139, it was held that an instruction requiring the defendant’s belief to be reasonable permitted conviction on the basis of negligence and, thus, required reversal where the offense mandated a finding of recklessness. The specific claim that limitation of mistake of fact to reasonable mistakes precludes the jury from considering relevant defense evidence have been successful in other contexts. (See e.g., State v. Gonzales (AZ 1984) 681 P2d 1368, 1371-72; Hendershott v. People (CO 1982) 653 P2d 385, 393.)

    "...[A]though there is some authority to the effect that a mistake of fact must be reasonable to negate intent [citation], the better, and more widely held view is that even an unreasonable mistake of fact, if honest, constitutes a valid defense. [Citation.]." (Model Penal Code, Tentative Draft No. 4, at p. 136 (Commentary on § 2.04(1) (1953)); see also Barker v. U.S. (DC Cir. 1976) 546 F2d 940, 948.)

    Additionally, limiting the defendant only to "reasonable" mistakes effectively permits conviction based on negligence. (See Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (West, 1984) § 62(c) p. 253.) This is a "dramatic alteration" of the rule that at least recklessness is required. (Ibid.)  In fact, conviction based on negligence may itself violate the due process clause of the federal constitution. (See FORECITE National™ 65.3.1 [Serious Felony Liability Based On Negligence Violates Fundamental Common Law Principles]; see also FORECITE National™ 92.1.4 [Constitutional Challenge To Criminal Liability For Homicide Based On Simple Negligence].)

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.13.7 [Mistake Of Fact].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 252

PRACTICE NOTE: It has been stated that if the charged offense does not require a special intent or mental element a mistake of fact may not be recognized as an excuse unless it was "reasonable." (See Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law (Foundation Press, 1982) at 1046; see also People v. Williams (CA 1992) 4 C4th 354, 360-61 [14 CR2d 441] [defendant must honestly and reasonably perceive facts differently from how they actually existed]; but see FORECITE National™ 252.7.8 [Assault With Intent To Commit Rape Or Other Sex Crime: Good Faith Belief In Consent As Defense Theory].)

    However, as to crimes requiring a special mental element, a genuinely held mistake of fact which negates such an element may be recognized, even though such belief was unreasonable as measured by the objective standard of a hypothetical reasonable man. (See Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law (Foundation Press, 1982) at 1046; see also People v. Howard (CA 1984) 36 C3d 852, 862 [206 CR 124]; Richmond v. State (MD 1993) 623 A2d 630, 635; CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 5.21, note [Note On Defenses Of Accident And Mistake] p. 592 (Bar Association of the District of Columbia, 4th ed. 1993) [accident and mistake of fact have potential application "to any case in which they could rebut proof of a required mental element"] [Citation.].)

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.13.7 [Mistake Of Fact].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 252

RATIONALE: In deciding whether a person's belief was objectively reasonable, the jury must consider whether a reasonable person in the same situation or circumstances would have held the belief. However, without specification of this requirement in the instructions, the jury will not likely understand it.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: In some situations, such as general intent crimes in California, mistake of fact is a defense only if the defendant's mistaken belief was reasonable. (See CALIFORNIA JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL, CALJIC 4.35 [Ignorance or Mistake of Fact] p. 203 (West, 6th Ed. 1996).) When reasonableness is an issue, the defendant's belief should be measured by an objective "reasonable person" standard. (See FORECITE National™ Chapter 48 [Objective Unreasonableness (Reasonable Person Standard)].) This standard requires consideration of a reasonable person in defendant's situation ...." (Ibid.) Thus, any evidence which would impair the defendant's ability to know the fact in issue such as intoxication or physical disability, etc., must be considered by the jury in determining whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have or should have known the fact in issue. (Ibid.)

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 3.5; 4.1].

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.13.7 [Mistake Of Fact].

    In determining whether the defendant's belief was reasonable, you must determine whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have had such belief. This means that you must consider all the circumstances [including _____________ [insert specific characteristics at issue, if any]] in deciding whether [his] [her] belief was reasonable.

    If you have a reasonable doubt whether a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have had such a belief, you must give the defendant the benefit of that doubt and find that the belief was reasonably held.

[Source: Adapted from People v. Humphrey (CA 1996) 13 C4th 1073, 1088 [56 CR2d 142].]