The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Help me with this mistake of law/mens rea question
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:05 PM Author: Ivory stead Going through my Themis practice MBE, and there's this:
"A law makes it a crime to 'knowingly sell, distribute, or barter a sexually explicit film featuring actors younger than the age of majority.' The owner of an adult video store sold explicit videos in her store that featured 18-year-old actors, but she took reasonable steps to ensure that no videos featuring younger actors were sold in her store. The video store owner, however, incorrectly believed that the age of majority in the jurisdiction was 18; in fact, the age of majority was 19 years old.
The owner was arrested and charged with violating the statute in a jurisdiction that has adopted the Model Penal Code. The prosecution does not contest that her error was made honestly. Should she nonetheless be convicted?"
I chose: "Yes, because the owner's error was a mistake of law, which is not a valid defense." I mean, right? This is a classic application of ignorance is no defense. She knew the actors' actual age, and her mistake about the age of majority does not exculpate even as against a mens rea of knowingly or purposefully. Right? Right?
But no, the "correct" answer is "No, because the owner's error negated the requisite mens rea."
Help me out, fellow bar exam studying bros (or officious intermeddlers). Who's right here? And if I'm wrong, please give me a better explanation than the lecture dooder. |
 |
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:07 PM Author: Razzle Associate I couldn't take the question seriously after seeing that the adult video store owner is a "she". lol at the ridiculous lengths law profs go to promote political correctness (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#21131066) |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:07 PM Author: filthy shitlib elastic band Knowingly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#21131070) |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:13 PM Author: rough-skinned hairless principal's office athletic conference This. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#21131099) |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:17 PM Author: Ivory stead Help me out here. State law says it's a crime knowingly to kill a snipe, an endangered animal. I go hunting in an forest containing snipes and knipes. I mistakenly believe that the state law forbids killing knipes, and so I carefully limit my shooting to snipes. I'm innocent? Or how's it different? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#21131125) |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:19 PM Author: Trip organic girlfriend hunting ground hmmm, well that statute doesn't contain a reference to knowing the law, so you're still knowingly killing a snipe because you're actively hunting them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#21131142) |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:30 PM Author: Curious theater stage regret (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#21131224) |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:36 PM Author: Ivory stead Well, it raises the interesting question of whether a state could ban all sexually explicit but non-obscene depictions by passing a statute like this and saying "for purposes of this statute, the age of majority is 130."
As to the question, I'm still not convinced. I'll go back to my outline after I'm done with this review. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:37 PM Author: Curious theater stage regret Ignore my post, I mixed up what I was trying to say. MAFHuffPo has it below. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#21131273) |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:11 PM Author: Trip organic girlfriend hunting ground If it's unclear, I'd apply to the mens rea to pretty much every element of the crime, including the "younger than the age of majority" bit.
Therefore, she'd have to "know" that she was distributing films featuring people younger than the age of majority.
Odd question and I bet most people would go with your answer. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:13 PM Author: Ivory stead I know it applies to every element, I just don't think mistake of law exculpates. Basically, the presumption that she knows the correct age of majority is irrebuttable, because ignorance is no excuse. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#21131103) |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:20 PM Author: Trip organic girlfriend hunting ground I'm pretty sure there is an exception to mistake of law not being a defense. There's an exception when crimes involve knowing the law as an element.
So in your case, that involves knowing what the age of majority is.
In the "snipe" case, there's no element pertaining to the law, so all that matters is knowing that you are shooting and hunting. |
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:09 PM Author: Fluffy bright boltzmann mistake of law is valid if GF and negates an element of the crime.
another example would be a statute says it's illegal to sell a gun to a felon. guy sells a gun to a dude with a felony conviction but the guy thinks the conviction is a misdemeanor. no mens rea. total ignorance of the statute isn't an excuse, but if you can negate an element, usually intent, then mistake of law will hold up. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:15 PM Author: fighting resort The first statement here is right, but the example is not a good one because doesn't involve a state of mind. That would be a strict liability crime.
OP: the question hinges of "knowingly" applying to the age of majority not just the part about selling, distributing, bartering. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:18 PM Author: Ivory stead She knows the age, and that age is under the age of majority. She just doesn't know what the age of majority is. She's mistaken about the legal significance of a certain fact in the world, not about the existence of that fact. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#21131136) |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:23 PM Author: Trip organic girlfriend hunting ground (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#21131176) |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:41 PM Author: Fluffy bright boltzmann good point, but it operates the same way. negate an element with genuine misunderstanding of the law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#21131292) |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 3:06 PM Author: fighting resort Yeah, knowingly applying to the rest of the statute and not just sell, etc. is what I was getting at. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#21131478) |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:31 PM Author: Green crotch stock car "knowingly kill snipes" you went out and intentionally killed snipes. That you had no idea it was illegal is no excuse. ignorance of the law and all that.
"knowingly distribute [what you know is] child porn" seller didn't think it was child porn. therefore not knowingly. He knew the law was there, he just made a mistake in complying with it that negated the requisite state of mind. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2012 2:32 PM Author: Curious theater stage regret Here it is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#21131243) |
|
Date: July 26th, 2023 3:00 AM Author: Frozen kink-friendly electric furnace (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1999621&forum_id=2#46591433) |