State v. Mitchell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

State v. Mitchell 170 Mo. 633, 71 S.W. 175 (1902) is a precedent-setting case in a body of case law involving the prosecution of a failed attempts to commit a crime. In United States law, cases involving criminal attempts that fail can bring up interesting legal issues when the crime was unsuccessful due to factual impossibility or to legal impossibility.[1]

Contents

[edit] Background

Mistakes of fact is rarely an adequate defense in common law. In the United States, thirty-seven states have ruled out mistakes of fact as a defense to charges of attempt.[2] Mistakes of law has proved a more successful defense.

[edit] Mistakes of fact

A "factual" impossibility occurs when, at the time of the attempt, the facts make the intended crime impossible to commit although the defendant is unaware of this when the attempt is made.[3] In People v. Lee Kong, 95 Cal. 666, 30 P. 800 (1892), the defendant was found guilty for attempted murder for shooting at a hole in the roof, believing his victim to be there, and indeed, where his victim had been only moments before but was not at the time of the shooting.[3] Another case involving the defense of factual impossibility is Commonwealth v. Johnson, 167 A. 344, 348 (Pa. 1933) in which a wife intended to put arsenic in her husband's coffee but by mistake added the customary sugar instead. Later she felt repentant and confessed her acts to the police. She was arrested, tried, and convicted of attempted murder.[3] In United States v. Thomas, 13 U.S.C.M.A. 278 (1962) the court held that men who believed they were raping a drunken, unconscious woman were guilty of attempted rape, even though the woman was actually dead at the time sexual intercourse took place.[1][4]

[edit] Mistakes of law

An act that is considered legally impossible to commit is traditionally considered a valid defense for a person who was being prosecuted for a criminal attempt. An attempt is considered to be a "legal" impossibility when the defendant has completed all of his intended acts, but his acts fail to fulfill all the required common law elements of a crime. Mistakes of law has proved a successful defense. An example of a failed attempt of law is a person who shoots a tree stump; that person can not be prosecuted for attempted murder as there is no manifest intent to kill by shooting a stump.The underlying rationale is that attempting to do what is not a crime is not attempting to commit a crime.[5]

However, "legal" and "factual" mistakes are not mutually exclusive A borderline case is that of a person who shot a stuffed deer, thinking it was alive. That person was originally convicted for attempting to kill a protected animal out of season but, in a debatable reversal, an appellate judge threw out the conviction on the basis that it is no crime to shoot a stuffed deer out of season.[1][3]

[edit] Facts of the case

Mitchell fired shots into a room at night where his intended victim usually slept with the intent to murder the victim, one bullet striking the victim's usual pillow. Unknown to Mitchell, the victim was sleeping elsewhere that particular night. Using these circumstances (that the bed was empty) the defendant plead innocent on the grounds that the intended crime was factually impossible to commit as there was no victim in the room into which he fired. [1]

At trial, Mitchell was found guilty of attempted murder. The fact that intended crime was impossible for the defendant to commit was not considered a defense for the charge of attempting to commit a felony, in this case murder.[6]

Mitchell appealed his case.

[edit] Decision

The appellate court confirmed Mitchell's conviction, holding that objective itself was criminal in nature and only a circumstance unknown to the defendant prevented its completion. A person who shoots into the bed of another person on purpose, believing that person to be in the bed, is guilty of attempted murder. The conviction was substained.[7] The court ruled that "when the consequences sought by a defendant are forbidden by law as criminal, it is not defense that the defendant could not succeed in reaching his goal because of circumstances unknown to him.[1]

[edit] Significance

This case is part of a body of law developed in the United States on the issue of how to handle attempt cases. In most United States jurisdictions the defense that the act was a factual impossibility is not a good defense. A case similar to this one is State v. Moretti 52 N.M. 182, 244 A.sd 499 (1968) in which the defendant agreed to perform an illegal abortion upon a female undercover officer. Although the female police officer was not pregnant, the court upheld the conviction, stating the following:

...when the consequences sought by a defendant are forbidden by the law as criminal, it is no defense that the defendant could not succeed in reaching his goal because of circumstances unknown to him.[1]

With few exceptions, all cases in which an attempt to commit a felony was impossible to carry through because the defendant was mistaken in fact have been categorized as factually impossible and the conviction upheld.[2]

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ^ a b c d e f (1997) Criminal Law. Westbury, NY: The Foundation Press, p. 251. ISBN 1-56662-448-7. 
  2. ^ a b John Hasnas (2002). Once More unto the Breach:The Inherent Liberalism of the Criminal Law and Liability for Attempting the Impossible p. 13. George Mason University School of Law - Hastings Law Journal. Retrieved on 2008-01-10.
  3. ^ a b c d George P. Fletcher. Rethinking Crimimal Law pp. 149–151. Oxford University Press. Retrieved on 2008-01-09.
  4. ^ Criminal Law & Criminal Procedure Case Briefs - United States v. Thomas - Court of Military Appeals, 1962. Retrieved on 2008-01-10.
  5. ^ Attempt -Impossiblity Unavailable as a Defense. Oklahoma Jury Instructions. Retrieved on 2008-01-10.
  6. ^ (1988) Criminal Law: Understanding Basic Principles. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. ISBN 0-8039-2669-3. 
  7. ^ David Brody. Criminal Law. Jones and Barrett. Retrieved on 2008-01-09.

[edit] References