DEFENSES
Legality Principles
Fair Warning is needed for the law to be reasonably definite
Retroactivity is prohibited by constitutional due process (can't apply criminal law backwards to conduct that's already been done)
Ad Hocery occurs when there is inconsistent application of a legal standard, which goes against stare decisis
Rule of Lenity was designed to protect legality principles, but keep in mind this is a tool for courts and not required (if there's ambiguity, courts can provide guidance on interpretation to favor the defendant)
Balance of Powers prevents courts from construing statutory terms broadly and impose harsher terms
vagueness in a statutory term is unavoidable, but it must be resolved by looking at drafting legislature's intent and precedent of statute interpretation (term is unclear because it's a categorical term, which could be broad or narrow: for example, would an alligator be a "pet" for a pet-sitter?
Ambiguity in a statutory term is unavoidable, but it must be resolved by looking at drafting legislature's intent and precedent of statute interpretation (term has more than one meaning, for example sharp)
Willful Blindness (when one is AWARE that some facts may be certain but deliberately does not check)
Common Law
MPC 2.02(7) (applicable only for purposely/knowingly)
The State must show that the defendant was aware of a HIGH PROBABILITY of its existence
The State must show that the defendant acted "knowingly, i.e. the defendant was ACTUALLY AWARE
Strict Liability (NO MENS REA IS REQUIRED; the social harm is the CONDUCT)
Mistake of Law
Mistake of Fact
MPC 2.04 (makes no distinction between general and specific intent)
MPC 2.05
Common Law
Background Rule the mens rea is so fundamental to crime that we should always presume that its there even if the statute is silent UNLESS it is a public welfare crime
Public Welfare Crimes (gov't intentionally does not assign level of culpability
ASK: Whether the legis intended for there to be a level of culpability even though they failed to enact one
FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER STRICT LIABILITY EXISTS Remember, these are JUST CLUES. The intent of the legislature overrides the hallmarks
Only strict liability if (1) it is explicitly stated in the law/statute that it is a violation or (2) it only carries a fineM
Common Law
Is the crime a General Intent Crime OR Specific Intent Crime?
To get the MoF defense, the mistake has to (1) negate the mens rea AND
(2) relate to the material element
General Intent (Default) - Any crime that is NOT specific intent
Specific Intent the specific intent is specified in the statute and the intent MUST be one of the following:
(1) An Intent to do some future act(the statute has to expressly include an intent to do some future act)
OR
(2) An intent to achieve some FUTURE consequence beyond the the conduct or result of the crime (expressed in the statute)
OR
(3)The actor must be aware of an attendant circumstance (expressed in the statute)
Common Law
MPC 2.04
Mistake of defense will ONLY required a defendant SUBJECTIVELY BELIEF of the mistake, even if the mistake is UNREASONABLE
The defense requires that the defendant's mistake to be both SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE
The defendant must have acted REASONABLY to utilize the defense (an unreasonable act will not grant the defense)
3. Weight of Penalty (Is there a jail/prison term or just a fine?
2. Purpose of Regulation (Was the legislator's intent to punish the defendant or protect the general public?)
1. Common law crimes have a presumption of Mens Rea (Is it a common law or codified common law?)
MoL is a defense if it negates the requisite level of culpability for any material element (2.04(1)(a)) or if the law says that MoL is a defense (2.04(1)(b))
MoL is a defense if (1) the statute is not known to the actor and (2) has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct (2.04(3)(a))
MoL is a defense if the defendant was reasonably relying on the official statement of law later determined to be invalid or erroneous: this includes statutes and official interpretation from an entity responsible for interpreting the law (2.04(3)(b)).
GENERAL RULE: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. There is a presumption that you know the law if it's knowable, which goes back to legality principles.
What if there's ambiguity in the law?
Only way this "ambiguity" mistake is applicable is if the statute is so horribly vague and ambiguous that no one knows what it meant (legality principles-void for vagueness)
EXCEPTIONS
The law was not published
Different Law Mistake: If it is a SPECIFIC INTENT crime, and defendant makes a mistake about another law that negates his mens rea for the actual law, then the defendant gets a defense.
Reasonable Reliance: (1) There was an actual mistake in the law that was later found to be erroneous. OR (2) The interpretation has came from someone allowed to interpret the statute, i.e. one legally charged or empowered with the responsibility of interpreting the statute.
EXAMPLE for (1): a statute that says you can sell alcohol to people 20 years old. I sell liquor to a 20 year old. I get arrested for it because the person had to have been 21. I get the MoL defense because I reasonably relied on the statute that was actually erroneous.
EXAMPLE for (2): The county judge told me I can sell liquor to 20 year olds even though the statute says 21. I get arrested. I get the MoL defense because I reasonably relied on the judge, someone legally charged to interpret the law.
A breakdown/different explanation: STEP 1: Determine that it is specific intent. STEP 2: Determine that the defendant was mistaken about the law, i.e. did not know another law was in play (think of the mechanic statute on the handout that was in play but the lady did not know about). STEP 3: The mistake negated the specific intent element.