State v.

Contreras
Notes/Facts
Defendant (Anthony Contreras) checked into a Motel 6 at 3:30 one afternoon
and paid for a room. He was assigned Room 125 and was given a plastic key card, but
the key card did not have a room number on it. Defendant was very intoxicated when
he checked in and he left his identification at the front desk. At 4:45 PM, the police
were called to the Motel 6 because someone had thrown a heavy trashcan through the
window of Room 121. Room 121 was four doors down from Room 125. When
Officer Salbidrez arrived, he went into Room 121 and began to give verbal commands
to the person inside. Defendant came out from the bathroom area. He did not have
shoes on and he was obviously intoxicated. Defendant initially responded to the
officer with obscene remarks, although when told that he was under arrest, he offered
to pay for the window. The officer found nothing broken or damaged in the room,
other than the broken window, and nothing had been stolen. Defendant's key card was
found outside of Room 121. The officer confirmed that the key opened Room 125.
Defendant was indicted on one charge of breaking and entering, contrary to Section
30-14-8(A) and one charge of criminal damage to property, contrary to Section 30-151. Defendant requested an instruction on mistake of fact and argued that he showed
his identification, paid for a room, had permission to go into a room, thought he was
entering the room he had the right to be in, and made a mistake.
Issues
#1. Whether there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act
under an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of his right to enter the motel
room.
#2. Whether the defendant believed that he had permission to enter the room, because
the lack of permission to enter is an element of breaking and entering.
#3. Whether the mistake was honest and reasonable.
Reasoning
The state argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that Defendant had
an honest and reasonable belief that he was in the correct room or that he went into
the wrong room by mistake. The State also argues that the jury was not required to
find a specific mental state as an element of breaking and entering. The evidence in
favor of giving the mistake of fact instruction in the present case includes that
defendant was very intoxicated. The belief element in the mistake of fact instruction
requires that defendant had subjective or actual knowledge of permission to enter
Room 121. The defense of mistake of fact also requires the defendant's mistake to be
honest and reasonable.
Holding
Defendant was indicted on one charge of breaking and entering, contrary to
Section 30-14-8(A) and one charge of criminal charge to property, contrary to Section
30-15-1.

People v. Nasir
Notes/Facts
Defendant appeals as of right from his jury trial conviction of possessing or
using counterfeit tax stamps. In April 1999 two Michigan State Police officers
assigned to the State Police Tobacco Tax Unit conducted an administrative inspection
of the Ridgeway Party Store. Defendant, the store manager, was the only employee
present. Upon examination, one of the officers determined that counterfeit tax stamps
were affixed to a number of the tobacco products being sold. The statute reads a
person who manufactures, possesses, or uses a counterfeit stamp or writing or device
intended to replicate a stamp without authorization of the department, or a license
who purchases or obtains a stamp from any person other than the department, is guilty
of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 1 year or more
than 10 years and may be punished by a fine of not more than 50,000,000 dollars.
Issues
#1. Whether there is proof to beyond reasonable doubt that defendant possessed or
used a counterfeit stamp at the Ridgeway Party Store without the authorization of the
Michigan Department of Treasury.
#2. Whether the Legislation intended to dispense with a mens rea or fault requirement
when creating this offense.
#3. Whether a statute imposes strict liability.
#4. Whether the fault is a necessary element of crime.
Reasoning
The single reference to intent does not come in the context of describing a
particular mens rea. Rather it is used to

Cheek v. United States

Facts
Petitioner John L. Cheek has been a pilot for American Airlines since 1973.
He filed federal income tax returns through 1979 but thereafter ceased to file returns.
He also claimed an increasing number of withholding allowances-eventually claiming
60 allowances by mid 1980-and for the years 1981 to 1984 indicated on his W-4
forms that he was exempt from federal tax incomes. In 1983, petitioner unsuccessfully
sough a refund of all tax withheld by his employer in 1982. Petitioner's income during
this period at all times far exceeded the minimum necessary to triger the statutory
filing requirement. He was charged with 6 counts of willfully failing to file a federal
income tax return for the years 1980, 1981, and 1983 through 1986, in violation of
statute 26 USC 7203. He was further charged with three counts of willfully attempting
to evade his income taxes for the three years 1980, 1981, and 1983, in violation of this
statute. At trial, the evidence established that between 1982 and 1986, petitioner was
involved in at least four civil cases that challenged various aspects of the federal
income tax system. During this time period, petitioner also attended at least two
criminal trials of persons charged with tax offenses. In addition was evidence at in
1980 or 1981 an attorney had advised Cheek that the courts had rejeted as frivolous
the claim that wages are not income.
Issues
#1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the voluntary and intentional
violation of a known legal duty, a burden that could not be proved by showing
mistake, ignorance, or negligence.
#2. Whether good faith is supported by the law and can be used as a defense, which
does not negate willfulness.
#3. the definition of willfulness
#4. Whether the defendant knew of the duty purportedly imposed by the provision of
the statute or regulation he is accused of violating.
Reasoning
Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases, requires
the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the
defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that
duty.
Holding
He was charged with 6 counts of willfully failing to file a federal income tax return
for the years 1980, 1981, and 1983 through 1986, in violation of statute 26 USC 7203.
He was further charged with three counts of willfully attempting to evade his income
taxes for the three years 1980, 1981, and 1983, in violation of this statute. At trial, the
evidence established that between 1982 and 1986, petitioner was involved in at least
four civil cases that challenged various aspects of the federal income tax system.

Case Problem #11

Jane's intent regarding Wilma's death (in this case) is very clear. She speeds up
and rams the back of Seth's car twice, shouting out, "it's a rough ride with Wilma."
Jane's intent regard Seth's injury is also present. If she is ramming into Seth's car
intending to injure or kill Wilma, there is none fact that Seth will be affected because
not only is he in the car with Wilma, but he is the one driving the car. Even if Jane
wasn't intentionally trying to hurt Seth, the intent does transfer over because the
public policy demands that persons engaged in criminal activity not be exonerated
"merely because they accidentally commit a different offense than originally
contemplated." Therefore, the intent to commit the contemplated offense transfers to
the offense in fact committed.
Case Problem #12