A man went to a restaurant and checked his new, expensive black trench coat. Upon leaving, he presented his ticket to the attendant, who mistakenly handed him an identical-looking black trench coat belonging to another patron. Believing the coat was his, the man took it and went home. He was later charged with larceny after the rightful owner reported his coat, which contained a valuable watch in the pocket, as stolen.
Which of the following is the strongest argument for the man's defense against the charge of larceny?
He is not guilty because the coat check attendant was contributorily negligent.
He is not guilty because his honest mistake of fact negated the specific intent to steal.
He is guilty only if his mistake in believing the coat was his was unreasonable.
He is guilty because he took property that did not belong to him, regardless of his belief.
The correct answer is that the man is not guilty because his mistake of fact, even if unreasonable, negated the specific intent required for larceny. Larceny is a specific intent crime requiring the intent to permanently deprive another of their property. The man's honest belief that the coat was his, however mistaken, means he did not have the necessary 'mens rea' or criminal intent. The other options are incorrect. Taking another's property is the 'actus reus' of larceny, but without the required 'mens rea,' the crime is not complete. The reasonableness of the mistake is generally not the standard for specific intent crimes; an honest, albeit unreasonable, mistake can still be a valid defense. Finally, the fault of the attendant is irrelevant to the man's own criminal liability.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is mens rea, and why is it important in criminal law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are strict liability crimes, and how do they differ from other crimes?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can a mistake of law ever serve as a defense in criminal cases?