3.1 Mens Rea, Inchoate Offenses, Justification & Homicide
Analyze specific intent vs. general intent mistake of fact defenses under the Model Penal Code, Pinkerton co-conspirator liability, the majority agency theory of felony murder, and self-defense under the Castle Doctrine.
🎯 Essential Doctrinal Takeaways
- An honest subjective mistake of fact negates specific intent (e.g., larceny), even if the mistake was unreasonable.
- Under Pinkerton, co-conspirators are liable for substantive crimes committed by partners in furtherance and reasonably foreseeable.
- Under the majority agency theory of felony murder, a felon is NOT guilty if the lethal shot was fired by a police officer, bystander, or victim.
- The Castle Doctrine excuses any duty to retreat before using proportional deadly force against an intruder inside one's dwelling.
Criminal liability requires the union of actus reus (voluntary physical act) and mens rea (culpable mental state). At common law, crimes are categorized as specific intent, general intent, or strict liability. A mistake of fact is a complete defense to a specific intent crime (such as larceny, burglary, or attempt) if it negates the required mental state, regardless of whether the mistake was reasonable.
Inchoate crimes include conspiracy, attempt, and solicitation. Under Pinkerton v. United States, each member of a conspiracy is criminally responsible for any substantive offense committed by any other co-conspirator, provided the offense was in furtherance of the conspiracy and fell within the scope of the unlawful project as a reasonably foreseeable consequence.
Felony murder elevates an unintended death occurring during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony (burglary, arson, robbery, rape, kidnapping) to first-degree murder. Under the majority 'agency' theory, felony murder applies only if the fatal blow was struck by a felon or an agent of the criminal enterprise; deaths inflicted by officers or resisting victims do not qualify.
⚠️ NextGen Bar Examination Traps & Pitfalls
- Requiring a mistake of fact to be objectively reasonable when asserting it against a specific intent crime.
- Assuming a conspirator's instruction 'not to hurt anyone' insulates against Pinkerton liability for a co-conspirator's shooting.
- Applying the minority proximate cause felony murder rule when the exam specifies or assumes the majority agency theory.
Interactive Knowledge Checkpoint
A customer at a coat-check station mistakenly takes a designer cashmere overcoat that is identical in color, size, and brand to his own overcoat, honestly believing it belongs to him. The customer is charged with common law larceny, a specific intent crime requiring the intent to permanently deprive another of their property. The prosecution argues that any reasonable person would have checked the inner collar initials before taking the coat, and therefore the customer's mistake was unreasonable. How should the court rule on the customer's defense of mistake of fact?