This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Is a mistake in fact a defense for Mr. Short? Holding: Yes, but it is not enough. Rule: The mistake in fact has to be backed up with “reasonable” circumstances for one to believe the mistaken fact. Rational: Mr. Short’s personal evaluation of the circumstances is but one factor to be considered by the court; it is not conclusive. When consent is in issue, the fact that it was or was not given is a question of fact for the court. It must determine whether the woman’s conduct was such as to lead the accused to believe she had consented to his acts. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences: The Judge Brosman said that, because the accused was charged with assault with the intent to rape, the mistake in fact is a defense for intent. So without that evidence being submitted, how can it be fair to be charged with the intent to rape, when he had a defense for the intent. If he did rape, then the intent factor is lowered significantly....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 10/18/2011 for the course CRIM LAW 110 taught by Professor Wade during the Spring '11 term at California Western School of Law.
- Spring '11