Under the MPC, which type of mistake can serve as a defense depending on the crime's intent?

Under the MPC, which type of mistake can serve as a defense depending on the crime's intent?

• A. Unreasonable Mistake: Specific Intent
• B. Reasonable Mistake: Specific Intent, Malice, General Intent
• C. Never: Strict Liability
• D. Unreasonable Mistake: General Intent

Answer: (B)

Under the Model Penal Code, the defense of mistake of fact works by negating the mens rea required for the offense. The key idea is that if your mistaken belief about a fact eliminates the mental state the crime requires, you may not be liable. For crimes that hinge on a specific intent, or on malice (recklessness) or general intent, a defendant who reasonably believes a different fact can negate that intended mental state. In other words, a reasonable mistake of fact can excuse liability when the crime depends on what you intended or believed. Strict liability offenses don’t require any mental state, so a mistake about facts cannot serve as a defense there. Unreasonable mistakes usually don’t negate the required mental state, so they’re not generally valid defenses. That’s why a reasonable mistake of fact is the best fit for crimes with specific intent, malice, or general intent, and not for strict liability.

Under the Model Penal Code, the defense of mistake of fact works by negating the mens rea required for the offense. The key idea is that if your mistaken belief about a fact eliminates the mental state the crime requires, you may not be liable. For crimes that hinge on a specific intent, or on malice (recklessness) or general intent, a defendant who reasonably believes a different fact can negate that intended mental state. In other words, a reasonable mistake of fact can excuse liability when the crime depends on what you intended or believed.

Strict liability offenses don’t require any mental state, so a mistake about facts cannot serve as a defense there. Unreasonable mistakes usually don’t negate the required mental state, so they’re not generally valid defenses. That’s why a reasonable mistake of fact is the best fit for crimes with specific intent, malice, or general intent, and not for strict liability.