Mistakes of Facts and Its Effect to Negate the State of Mind Requirement

Occupation: Associated Professor of the Department of Criminal Law
Affiliation: Institute of International Law and Justice of Moscow State Linguistic University
Address: Russian Federation,

Journal name

Journal of Russian Law

Edition

Abstract

Mistakes arise when a criminal defendant misunderstood some fact that negates an element of the crime or misunderstood or was ignorant of the law. The usual rule is that the simple belief that a certain conduct is not punishable should not be a defense (ignorantia juris nocet). But in some cases, a mistake can really seriously change the subjective element of the crime. If a criminal defendant argues that the criminal act that occurred was a result of a mistake of facts regarding the circumstances of the crime, then his words should not be thoughtlessly rejected. Reasonably and honestly believed must refuted, because it is an essential part of the principle of guilt. Reasonable refutation is inextricably linked with the development of the doctrine of mistake of fact defense in criminal cases.

The aim of the study is to analyze mistakes of facts as defenses due to a change in the mental element.

The research is based on a comprehensive analysis of criminal legislation, judicial practice and the concepts of mistakes. The study also uses such research methods as system-structural and formal-logical.

The study proposes the classification of mistakes of facts or law, which is based on the cause of a defendant's delusion and the possibility of avoiding it. The following stand out: unreasonably references to a mistakes of facts, which testify to an indirect intent; mistakes of facts, which allowed as full defenses to criminal conduct. It is taken into account that the needs of the criminal justice authorities lead to the simplification of many rules, so the emphasis is on the casual description of specific models of criminal behavior.

Keywords

legitimately mistaken; mistake of fact; mens rea; intent; criminal defenses; presumption

Received

06.09.2023

Publication date

13.12.2023

Cite

GOST	Korableva S. Mistakes of Facts and Its Effect to Negate the State of Mind Requirement // Journal of Russian Law – 2023. – Articles_JRP_2023-2024 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://jrp.jes.su/S160565900027475-6-1 (circulation date: 19.05.2024). DOI: 10.12737/S160565900027475-6
MLA	Korableva, Svetlana "Mistakes of Facts and Its Effect to Negate the State of Mind Requirement." Journal of Russian Law 0 (2023) DOI: 10.12737/S160565900027475-6
APA	Korableva S. (2023). Mistakes of Facts and Its Effect to Negate the State of Mind Requirement. Journal of Russian Law (0) DOI: 10.12737/S160565900027475-6

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Akimochkin V. I. K voprosu o mnimoj oborone i fakticheskoj oshibke v ugolovnom prave // Chelovek: prestuplenie i nakazanie. 2019. № 27 (3). S. 330–334.

2. Bibik O. N. Ehkonomicheskij podkhod pri issledovanii kategorii viny v ugolovnom prave // Pravoprimenenie. 2018. № 2 (4). S. 99–105.

3. Vakhnenko A. A., Greshnova N. A. Doktrinal'nye problemy klassifikatsii ugolovno-pravovykh oshibok // Vestnik Saratovskoj gosudarstvennoj yuridicheskoj akademii. 2021. № 2 (139). S. 145–152.

4. Gordejchik S. A., Egorova N. A. Novoe postanovlenie plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda RF o neobkhodimoj oborone i prichinenii vreda pri zaderzhanii litsa, sovershivshego prestuplenie // Zakonnost'. 2013. № 2. S. 15–20.

5. Goryachev I. N. O statisticheskikh osnovaniyakh dejstviya prezumptsii znaniya zakona v ugolovnom prave Rossii // Yuridicheskaya tekhnika. 2010. № 4. C. 130–144.

6. Goryachev I. N. Prezumptsiya znaniya zakona i printsip nesuschestvennosti yuridicheskoj oshibki v ugolovnom prave Rossii : avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. Ekaterinburg, 2010. 24 s.

7. Klepitskij I. A. Sistema khozyajstvennykh prestuplenij. M. : Statut, 2005. 570 s.

8. Korablyova S. Yu. Vina v ugolovno-pravovoj teorii i praktike zarubezhnykh stran : Monografiya. M.: RUSAJNS, 2020. 160 s.

9. Matorina Yu. N., Matorin M. A. Printsip viny v prestupleniyakh protiv polovoj neprikosnovennosti nesovershennoletnikh // Vestnik Sibirskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii. 2019. № 3 (36). S. 33–38.

10. Okuneva M. O. Klassovyj podkhod v sovetskom prave (1917-1927) // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 11. Pravo. 2017. № 5. S. 114–125.

11. Prokhorov A. Yu. Institut oshibki v romano-germanskom ugolovnom prave: komparativistskij i teoretiko-prikladnoj aspekty : avtoref. dis. … k.yu.n. Krasnodar, 2015. 35 s.

12. Rarog A. I. Problemy kvalifikatsii prestuplenij po sub'ektivnym priznakam. M. : Prospekt, 2015. 231 s.

13. Rakhmanin S. V. Problema oproverzhimosti prezumptsii znaniya zakona i yuridicheskaya oshibka v ugolovnom prave // Pravo i politika. 2019. № 3. S. 41–46.

14. Fatkullina M. B. Yuridicheskie i fakticheskie oshibki v ugolovnom prave (problemy kvalifikatsii) : avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. Ekaterinburg, 2001. 23 s.

15. Frister G. Ugolovnoe pravo Germanii. Obschaya chast' = Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil : per. s nem. 5 izd-e. M. : Infotropik Media, 2013. 712 s.

16. Yakushin V. A. Oshibka i ee ugolovno-pravovoe znachenie. Kazan' : Izd-vo Kazan. un-ta, 1988. 126 s.

17. Yani P. S. O znachenii printsipa «ignorantia juris nocet» dlya vmeneniya sostavov ehkonomicheskikh prestuplenij // Ugolovnoe pravo v XXI veke. Materialy mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferentsii, sostoyavshejsya na yuridicheskom fakul'tete MGU im. M.V. Lomonosova 31 maya – 1 iyunya 2001 g. M. : LeksEhst, 2002. S. 234-238.