-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
/
s10-02-infancy-intoxication-ignorance.html
156 lines (140 loc) · 29 KB
/
s10-02-infancy-intoxication-ignorance.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<link href="shared/bookhub.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">
<title>Infancy, Intoxication, Ignorance, and Mistake</title>
</head>
<body>
<div id=navbar-top class="navbar">
<div class="navbar-part left">
<a href="s10-01-the-insanity-defense.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-left.png"></a> <a href="s10-01-the-insanity-defense.html">Previous Section</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part middle">
<a href="index.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-up.png"></a> <a href="index.html">Table of Contents</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part right">
<a href="s10-03-entrapment.html">Next Section</a> <a href="s10-03-entrapment.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-right.png"></a>
</div>
</div>
<div id="book-content">
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02" condition="start-of-chunk" version="5.0" lang="en">
<h2 class="title editable block">
<span class="title-prefix">6.2</span> Infancy, Intoxication, Ignorance, and Mistake</h2>
<div class="learning_objectives editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_n01">
<h3 class="title">Learning Objectives</h3>
<ol class="orderedlist" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_l01">
<li>Define the infancy defense.</li>
<li>Distinguish a juvenile court adjudication from a criminal prosecution.</li>
<li>Ascertain four criteria that could support a juvenile court waiver of jurisdiction.</li>
<li>Identify a situation where voluntary intoxication may provide a defense.</li>
<li>Define involuntary intoxication.</li>
<li>Compare the defenses of voluntary and involuntary intoxication.</li>
<li>Identify a situation where mistake of law may provide a defense.</li>
<li>Identify a situation where mistake of law is not a valid defense.</li>
<li>Identify a situation where mistake of fact may provide a defense.</li>
<li>Identify a situation where mistake of fact is not a valid defense.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Infancy</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s01_p01">Many states recognize the defense of <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">infancy</a><span class="glossdef">A defense that asserts the defendant is too young to form the requisite intent for the crime.</span></span>. <strong class="emphasis bold">Infancy</strong> asserts that the defendant is not subject to criminal prosecution because he or she is <em class="emphasis">too young</em> to commit a crime. The policy supporting the infancy defense is the belief that juvenile defendants are too immature to form criminal intent. The infancy defense is typically statutory and can be perfect or imperfect, depending on the jurisdiction.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s01_p02">States divide up the jurisdiction of criminal defendants between juvenile courts and adult courts. Juvenile court systems generally retain jurisdiction over criminal defendants under the age of sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen, with exceptions. The Model Penal Code position is that “[a] person shall not be tried for or convicted of an offense if: (a) at the time of the conduct charged to constitute the offense he was less than sixteen years of age, [in which case the Juvenile Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction]” (Model Penal Code § 4.10(1)(a)).</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s01_p03">The primary purpose of a juvenile court adjudication is <strong class="emphasis bold">rehabilitation</strong>. The goal is to reform the minor before he or she becomes an adult. In most states, the infancy defense protects a youthful defendant from criminal prosecution as an <em class="emphasis">adult</em>; it does not prohibit a juvenile adjudication. Most minor defendants are adjudicated in juvenile court, so the infancy defense is rarely used.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s01_p04">Juveniles <em class="emphasis">can</em> be prosecuted as adults under certain specified circumstances. At early common law, criminal defendants were divided into three age groups. Those under the age of seven were deemed incapable of forming criminal intent, and could not be criminally prosecuted. Defendants between the ages of seven and fourteen were provided a <strong class="emphasis bold">rebuttable presumption</strong> that they lacked the mental capacity to form criminal intent. Once a defendant turned fourteen, he or she was subject to an adult criminal prosecution. Modern <em class="emphasis">statutes</em> codify the adult criminal prosecution standard for different age groups. Some states follow the early common law and set up rebuttable and irrebuttable presumptions based on the defendant’s age.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn06_035">RCW 9A.04.050, accessed December 6, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.04.050">http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.04.050</a>.</span> Other states set forth a minimum age, such as fourteen or sixteen, and defendants who have reached that age are prosecuted as adults.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn06_036">N.Y. Penal Law § 30.00, accessed December 6, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN030.00_30.00.html">http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN030.00_30.00.html</a>.</span></p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s01_p05">When a juvenile court has jurisdiction, the jurisdiction must be forfeited if the juvenile is to be prosecuted as an adult. This process is called <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">waiver</a><span class="glossdef">The process by which a juvenile court forfeits jurisdiction over a minor.</span></span>. Juvenile courts can have exclusive jurisdiction over minors under eighteen, or <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">concurrent or simultaneous jurisdiction</a><span class="glossdef">Two courts have jurisdiction over an individual simultaneously.</span></span> with adult courts, depending on the state.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s01_p06">States vary as to the waiver procedure. Some states allow judges to use discretion in granting the waiver, while others vest this power in the legislature or the prosecutor.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn06_037">Melissa Sickmund, OJJDP National Report Series Bulletin, “Juveniles in Court,” National Center for Juvenile Justice website, accessed December 7, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/195420/page4.html">http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/195420/page4.html</a>.</span> A few factors serve as criteria supporting the waiver to adult criminal court: the nature of the offense, the sophistication it requires, the defendant’s criminal history, and the threat the defendant poses to public safety.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn06_038"><em class="emphasis">Kent v. United States</em>, 383 U.S. 541 (1966), accessed December 7, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5405024647930835755&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5405024647930835755&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr</a>.</span></p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s01_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Example of the Infancy Defense</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s01_s01_p01">Mario is ten years old. Mario shoplifts some candy from the local market and is arrested. The newly elected district attorney decides to make an example of Mario, and begins an adult criminal prosecution against him for theft. In Mario’s state, the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction over individuals under the age of eighteen. Mario can probably claim <strong class="emphasis bold">infancy</strong> as a perfect defense to the theft charge. Mario should be adjudicated in juvenile court, not prosecuted as an adult. Therefore, the juvenile court has jurisdiction in this case and Mario’s criminal prosecution should be dismissed.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s02">
<h2 class="title editable block">Intoxication</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s02_p01"><span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">Intoxication</a><span class="glossdef">A mental or physical disturbance caused by alcohol, illegal drugs, or legal drugs.</span></span> is another defense that focuses on the defendant’s inability to form the requisite criminal intent. In general, intoxication can be based on the defendant’s use of alcohol, legal drugs, or illegal drugs. The Model Penal Code defines intoxication as “a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body” (Model Penal Code § 2.08(5) (a)). The intoxication defense could be perfect or imperfect, statutory or common law, depending on the jurisdiction.</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s02_p02">Intoxication is a state that is achieved either <em class="emphasis">voluntarily</em> or <em class="emphasis">involuntarily</em>. Most states frown on the use of voluntary intoxication as a defense, and allow it only to reduce the severity of the crime charged.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn06_039">N.Y. Penal Law § 15.25, accessed December 7, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN015.25_15.25.html">http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN015.25_15.25.html</a>.</span> Recall from <a class="xref" href="storm_1.0-ch04#storm_1.0-ch04">Chapter 4 "The Elements of a Crime"</a> that if a defendant voluntarily undertakes action, such as drinking or ingesting drugs, the <strong class="emphasis bold">voluntary act</strong> requirement is met. Conduct that occurs <em class="emphasis">after</em> the voluntary intoxication probably is not excused unless the intoxication prevents the defendant from forming the criminal intent required for the offense.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn06_040">Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.125, accessed December 7, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.125">https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.125</a>.</span> If the crime charged is a reckless intent crime, voluntary intoxication rarely provides even an imperfect defense.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn06_041">Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503(b), accessed December 7, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/tennessee/tn-code/tennessee_code_39-11-503">http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/tennessee/tn-code/tennessee_code_39-11-503</a>.</span></p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s02_p03"><strong class="emphasis bold">Involuntary intoxication</strong> is more likely to provide a defense than voluntary intoxication. Generally, a defendant can claim involuntary intoxication if he or she ingested the drug or alcohol unknowingly or under force, duress, or fraud.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn06_042">California Jury Instructions No. 3427, accessed December 7, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3427.html">http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3427.html</a>.</span> Involuntary intoxication could affect the defendant’s ability to form criminal intent, thus negating specific intent, dropping murder a degree, or converting murder to manslaughter. The Model Penal Code equates involuntary intoxication with the substantial capacity test, providing “[i]ntoxication which (a) is not self-induced…is an affirmative defense if by reason of such intoxication the actor at the time of his conduct lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate its criminality [wrongfulness] or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law” (Model Penal Code § 2.08 (4)).</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s02_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Example of the Intoxication Defense</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s02_s01_p01">Clint slips a date rape drug into Delilah’s drink at a fraternity party. Delilah is twenty-one and legally able to consume alcohol. The date rape drug produces a state of unconsciousness during which Delilah severely beats a sorority sister. Delilah can probably claim involuntary intoxication as a defense in this situation. Although Delilah voluntarily drank the alcohol, she became intoxicated from the date rape drug that she ingested <em class="emphasis">unknowingly</em>. Delilah could be acquitted or could have a charge of aggravated battery reduced, depending on the jurisdiction.</p>
<div class="figure large editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s02_s01_f01">
<p class="title"><span class="title-prefix">Figure 6.7</span> Crack the Code</p>
<img src="section_10/92f4f56ea9e1d5bb63231418adef095e.jpg">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03">
<h2 class="title editable block">Ignorance and Mistake</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_p01">Occasionally, a defendant’s <strong class="emphasis bold">mistake</strong> negates the criminal intent required for an offense. Mistakes can be a <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">mistake of law</a><span class="glossdef">A defense that asserts the defendant incorrectly believes his or her conduct is legal, negating the requisite intent for the crime.</span></span> or a <span class="margin_term"><a class="glossterm">mistake of fact</a><span class="glossdef">A defense that asserts the facts as the defendant incorrectly believes them to be negate the requisite intent for the crime.</span></span>. Mistake of law and fact defenses can be statutory or common law, perfect or imperfect, depending on the jurisdiction.</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Mistake of Law</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s01_p01">The basis of the mistake of law defense is that the defendant believes his or her <em class="emphasis">criminal</em> conduct is <em class="emphasis">legal</em>. The defense could be a failure of proof defense or an affirmative defense of excuse, depending on the jurisdiction.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn06_043">Tex. Penal Code § 8.03, accessed December 7, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/Pe.8.htm">http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/Pe.8.htm</a>.</span> The Model Penal Code provides, “Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if: (a) the ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense; or (b) the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense” (Model Penal Code § 2.04(1)).</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s01_p02">Most states require that the mistake of law be founded on a <em class="emphasis">statute</em> or <em class="emphasis">judicial decision</em> that is later overturned.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn06_044">La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:17, accessed December 7, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://law.justia.com/louisiana/codes/2009/rs/title14/rs14-17.html">http://law.justia.com/louisiana/codes/2009/rs/title14/rs14-17.html</a>.</span> The Model Penal Code states, “A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when…the actor…acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid…contained in…a statute or…judicial decision” (Model Penal Code § 2.04(3) (b)).</p>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s01_p03">Incorrect advice from a licensed attorney <em class="emphasis">cannot</em> form the basis of a mistake of law defense.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn06_045"><em class="emphasis">Hopkins v. State</em>, 69 A.2d 456 (1949), accessed December 9, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1949682193Md489_1637.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985">http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1949682193Md489_1637.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985</a>.</span> Nor can mistake of law be rooted in <em class="emphasis">ignorance of the law</em> because all individuals are required to know the criminal laws effective in their jurisdiction. The Model Penal Code provides, “A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when: the statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise made available prior to the conduct” (Model Penal Code § 2.04(3) (a)).</p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s01_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Example of the Mistake of Law Defense</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s01_s01_p01">Shelby, an attorney, researches current case law and determines that it is legal to sell products over the Internet and not charge sales tax. Shelby starts selling designer clothing on eBay and does not charge her customers any sales tax. The case decision that Shelby relied on is <em class="emphasis">overturned</em> by a court of appeals. Shelby can probably assert <strong class="emphasis bold">mistake of law</strong> as a defense to the crime of evading payment of sales tax.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s01_s02">
<h2 class="title editable block">Example of a Case That Is Inappropriate for the Mistake of Law Defense</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s01_s02_p01">Review the mistake of law defense example given in <a class="xref" href="#storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s01_s01">Section 6 "Example of the Mistake of Law Defense"</a>. Assume that in Shelby’s state, it is currently illegal to sell products over the Internet without charging sales tax. Jonathan meets with Shelby, and asks her to research whether he needs to charge sales tax when he sells products over the Internet. Shelby agrees to research the matter and get back to Jonathan the next day with an answer. After Jonathan leaves, Shelby is contacted by her friend Margaret, who wants to take an impromptu trip to New York City. Margaret asks Shelby if she would like to come along. Shelby agrees, rushes home, packs for the trip, and leaves with Margaret. The next day while Shelby is watching a Broadway play with Margaret, Jonathan calls Shelby on her cell phone and asks Shelby what her research revealed about the sales tax question. Even though she has <em class="emphasis">not</em> done any research on the matter, Shelby responds, “I just finished the research. You do not need to charges sales tax when you sell products over the Internet.” If Jonathan thereafter relies on Shelby’s incorrect advice, and sells products over the Internet without charging sales tax, he probably will <em class="emphasis">not</em> be able to assert <strong class="emphasis bold">mistake of law</strong> as a defense. Incorrect advice from an attorney cannot excuse criminal conduct, even if the crime is committed <em class="emphasis">because</em> of the faulty legal opinion. Therefore, Jonathan could be charged with tax evasion in this situation.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s02">
<h2 class="title editable block">Mistake of Fact</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s02_p01"><strong class="emphasis bold">Mistake of fact</strong> is more likely to provide a defense than mistake of law. If the facts <em class="emphasis">as the defendant believes them to be</em> negate the requisite intent for the crime at issue, the defendant can assert mistake of fact as a defense.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn06_046">N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 626:3I (a), accessed December 9, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/626/626-mrg.htm">http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/626/626-mrg.htm</a>.</span> Mistake of fact is generally not a defense to <strong class="emphasis bold">strict liability</strong> crimes because intent is not an element of a strict liability offense.<span class="footnote" id="storm_1.0-fn06_047"><em class="emphasis">People v. Olsen</em>, 685 P.2d 52 (1984), accessed December 9, 2010, <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/8639-people-v-olsen">http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/8639-people-v-olsen</a>.</span></p>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s02_s01">
<h2 class="title editable block">Example of the Mistake of Fact Defense</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s02_s01_p01">Mickie sees Rachel, his neighbor, riding his bicycle in her driveway. Mickie walks quickly up to Rachel and demands that she get off the bike and return it to his garage. Frightened, Rachel hops off and runs to her house, leaving the bike behind. Mickie walks the bike over to his garage. Once Mickie reaches the garage, he sees that his bike, which is an exact replica of Rachel’s, is already inside. Mickie may be able to use <strong class="emphasis bold">mistake of fact</strong> as a defense to theft. As is discussed in <a class="xref" href="storm_1.0-ch11#storm_1.0-ch11">Chapter 11 "Crimes against Property"</a>, the intent for theft is the intent to take the property of <em class="emphasis">another</em> person. Mickie believed Rachel’s bike was <em class="emphasis">his</em>. Thus Mickie’s mistake of fact negates the intent required for this offense.</p>
</div>
<div class="section" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s02_s02">
<h2 class="title editable block">Example of a Case That Is Inappropriate for the Mistake of Fact Defense</h2>
<p class="para editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s02_s02_p01">Tina is pulled over for speeding. Tina claims her speedometer is broken, so she was mistaken as to her speed. Tina probably <em class="emphasis">cannot</em> assert <strong class="emphasis bold">mistake of fact</strong> as a defense in this case. Speeding is generally a <strong class="emphasis bold">strict liability</strong> offense. Thus Tina’s mistaken belief as to the facts is not <em class="emphasis">relevant</em> because there is no intent required for this crime.</p>
<div class="figure large editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s02_s02_f01">
<p class="title"><span class="title-prefix">Figure 6.8</span> Comparison of Infancy, Intoxication, and Mistake</p>
<img src="section_10/fdca5db49849b93b36e22008e688ef97.jpg">
</div>
<div class="key_takeaways editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s02_s02_n01">
<h3 class="title">Key Takeaways</h3>
<ul class="itemizedlist" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s02_s02_l01">
<li>Infancy is a defense to an adult criminal prosecution if the defendant is too young to form the requisite criminal intent for the offense.</li>
<li>The purpose of an adult criminal prosecution is punishment; the purpose of a juvenile adjudication is rehabilitation of the minor before he or she becomes an adult.</li>
<li>Four criteria that could support a juvenile court waiver of jurisdiction are the nature of the offense, the sophistication it requires, the defendant’s criminal history, and the threat the defendant poses to public safety.</li>
<li>Voluntary intoxication may provide a defense if the intoxication prevents the defendant from forming the requisite criminal intent for the offense.</li>
<li>Involuntary intoxication is intoxication achieved unknowingly or pursuant to force, duress, or fraud.</li>
<li>Voluntary intoxication is frowned on as a defense and in many states does not provide a defense to certain crimes, such as reckless intent crimes. Involuntary intoxication is more likely to serve as a defense any time the defendant is incapable of forming the requisite criminal intent for the offense.</li>
<li>Mistake of law may provide a defense if the defendant believes his or her conduct is legal because of reliance on a statute or judicial opinion that is later overturned.</li>
<li>Mistake of law is not a defense when the defendant believes his or her conduct is legal because of reliance on the incorrect advice of an attorney.</li>
<li>If the facts as the defendant believes them to be prevent the defendant from forming the requisite intent for the crime, mistake of fact could be a valid defense.</li>
<li>Mistake of fact is not a defense to strict liability crimes because intent is not an element.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="exercises editable block" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s02_s02_n02">
<h3 class="title">Exercises</h3>
<p class="para" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s02_s02_p02">Answer the following questions. Check your answers using the answer key at the end of the chapter.</p>
<ol class="orderedlist" id="storm_1.0-ch06_s02_s03_s02_s02_l02">
<li>Burt, a sixteen-year-old, consumes alcohol for the first time at a party. Unaware of alcohol’s effect, Burt drinks too much, attempts to walk home, and is cited for being drunk in public. In Burt’s state, the juvenile court has concurrent jurisdiction over minors ages seventeen and under, with a waiver to adult court available at the judge’s discretion. Burt has not broken any laws before. Is it likely that the judge will <strong class="emphasis bold">waive</strong> juvenile court jurisdiction in this case and allow the adult criminal prosecution of Burt? Why or why not?</li>
<li>Read <em class="emphasis">People v. Register</em>, 60 N.Y.2d 270 (1983). In <em class="emphasis">Register</em>, the defendant shot and killed an individual in a bar after drinking heavily for many hours. The defendant thereafter sought a jury instruction on the <strong class="emphasis bold">intoxication</strong> defense to a charge of depraved mind murder. The trial court refused, and the defendant was convicted. Did the Court of Appeals of the State of New York uphold the conviction? The case is available at this link: <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9019321014077082981&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=">http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9019321014077082981&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=</a>.</li>
<li>Read <em class="emphasis">Garnett v. State</em>, 632 A.2d 797 (1993). In <em class="emphasis">Garnett</em>, the defendant, an intellectually disabled twenty-year-old, had sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year-old girl whom he believed to be sixteen, and was prosecuted for statutory rape. Did the Court of Appeals of Maryland reverse the trial court and allow the defendant to assert <strong class="emphasis bold">mistake of fact</strong> (the victim’s age) as a defense? Why or why not? The case is available at this link: <a class="link" target="_blank" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9331824442522694687&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9331824442522694687&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr</a>.</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id=navbar-bottom class="navbar">
<div class="navbar-part left">
<a href="s10-01-the-insanity-defense.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-left.png"></a> <a href="s10-01-the-insanity-defense.html">Previous Section</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part middle">
<a href="index.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-up.png"></a> <a href="index.html">Table of Contents</a>
</div>
<div class="navbar-part right">
<a href="s10-03-entrapment.html">Next Section</a> <a href="s10-03-entrapment.html"><img src="shared/images/batch-right.png"></a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<script type="text/javascript" src="shared/book.js"></script>
</body>
</html>