Introduction - Law and Fact

Torts vs. Criminal Law

• Torts might seem simpler than criminal law due to less focus on knowledge and deep thinking.

• Circumstantial evidence plays a role.

Mistake of Law and Fact

• Distinction can be confusing, especially with specific and general intent.

• Courts may disagree on whether something is a mistake of law or fact.

• It's often possible to reframe a question to make it seem like a factual mistake rather than a legal one.

Impossibility

• The Model Penal Code simplifies the analysis by having a single rule for both mistake of law and mistake of fact.

• Statutes are often written with common law in mind, so knowledge of common law is still valuable.

• Being able to argue old case law, even if it doesn't perfectly fit, can be helpful in practice.

Urizeanu Case (Marijuana Dispensary)

• Case Background: In 2005, California had legalized marijuana only for medical use.

• The defendant believed he was setting up a legal organization for medical marijuana use.

• He had a collective with hundreds of members and a dozen workers.

Efforts to Determine Legality:

• The defendant asked people if his operation was legal.

• He spoke with law enforcement, specifically a police officer, and someone from the DA's office.

Official Statement of the Law:

• Penal Code Section 2.04(3) allows reliance on an official statement of the law, even if later determined to be invalid.

• The question is whether a statement from a police officer or someone in the DA's office constitutes an official statement.

• A statement from the state attorney general would clearly qualify as an official statement.

Specific Intent Crime

• Conspiracy requires specific intent to violate the law.

• The defendant can argue he lacked the specific intent to violate the law because he believed his actions were legal.

Good Faith Belief

• The defendant only needs to show a good faith belief that his actions were legal, not necessarily a reasonable belief.

• Evidence of good faith includes consulting with police officers and the DA's office.

State's Argument

• The state argues that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

• However, this is not true when specific intent is required.

• In specific intent crimes, a good faith belief that one is not violating the law negates the required specific intent.

Ratzlaf Case (Structuring)

• The defendant structured transactions to avoid reporting requirements.

• Structuring is a federal crime if done willfully.

• The defendant knew about the structuring rules and intentionally avoided the reporting requirement, but claimed he didn't know it was illegal.

Willfully

• The key question is the meaning of "willfully" in the statute.

• The dissent argued that "willfully" usually refers to consciousness of the act, not whether it's unlawful.

Double Intent Element

• Justice Ginsburg argued that the statute requires a double mens rea, a double intent element.

• The defendant must both violate the structuring rule and willfully do it.

• Since the underlying conduct (structuring) is not necessarily nefarious, "willfully" should be interpreted to mean knowing that it's illegal.

Cheek Case (Tax Evasion)

• An airline pilot stopped filing tax returns, believing that wages were not taxable.

• He was charged with willful tax evasion.

• The court held that willfulness requires knowledge of the duty to pay taxes on wages and salary.

Model Penal Code vs. Common Law

• Model Penal Code: Mistake of fact and law are treated the same.

• If the lack of knowledge or mistake negates a mental element required to establish the offense, it's a defense.

Common Law

• Common Law: In general intent offenses, the mistake of fact must be reasonable.

• In specific intent offenses, a good faith belief in the mistake of fact is sufficient to negate the specific intent.

Specific Intent

• Specific intent offenses include conspiracy and attempt.

• Burglary: Requires intent to commit a felony inside the premises.

• Receiving Stolen Property: Requires knowledge that the property is stolen.

General Intent

• General Intent Offenses: Harder to use the mistake of fact defense because the mistake must be reasonable.

• Model Penal Code: Does not differentiate; an honest mistake is sufficient if it negates the required mental element.

Navarro Case (Theft)

• The defendant claimed he had a good faith belief that the property he took had been abandoned.

• He argued that he should not be guilty of theft, even if his belief was unreasonable.

• The judge instructed the jury that the belief had to be both reasonable and in good faith.

Offense Analysis

• The statute stated that anyone who "feloniously steals" the property of another is guilty of theft.

• The question is whether this is a general or specific intent crime.

• "Stealing" implies an intent to permanently deprive the other party of possession, making it a specific intent offense.

Court's Mischaracterization

• The court mischaracterized the offense as a general intent crime.

• However, stealing, larceny, and theft require the intent to deprive the other person of the property.

• This makes it a specific intent crime, meaning the defendant only needs to show a good faith belief.

Joyriding Example

• Statute: Joyriding is the purposeful taking of another person's vehicle without permission.

Model Penal Code

• The example applies the model penal code.

• The driver has to be aware that he's taking a vehicle without permission.

• If the driver mistakenly believes it's his own car, is that a defense?

Section 2.04

• Section 2.04: Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact is a defense if it negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense.

• If the jury believes he thought it was his own classic Ferrari, that would be a defense under the model penal code.

Mistake of Law

• Official Interpretation: If there's an official interpretation (e.g., attorney general's opinion) that later turns out to be an error, that can be a defense.

• Malum Prohibitum: If a statute defines something as malum prohibitum (wrong only because the legislature made it a crime), a mistake of law defense may be available.

Specific Intent

• Honestly Held Mistake: For specific intent elements, an honestly held mistake (even if not objectively reasonable) can be a defense.

Summary

• Specific intent: Good faith belief alone is okay if it negates the specific intent.

• General intent: The mistake has to be reasonable (in common law).

• Model Penal Code: Only an honest mistake is required.