§ 12.04 MODEL PENAL CODE

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina

§ 12.04. Model Penal Code⁴⁰

[A] General Rule

The Model Code uses a straightforward elemental approach to matters of mens rea, including mistakes of fact. Section 2.02, subsection (1), states the general rule that one is not guilty of an offense unless he acted "purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense." Thus, as to each material element of an offense, there is a particular mens rea requirement, be it purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence. Specifically as to mistakes of fact, Section 2.04(1) provides that a mistake is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any element of the offense. It is irrelevant whether the offense would be identified as general-intent or specific-intent at common law. Put simply, either the actor had the culpable state of mind required in the definition of the offense or he did not. All states that apply Sections 2.02 and 2.04 of the Model Penal Code apply the rules set out here.

Consider how the facts in Morgan,⁴¹ discussed immediately above, in Section 12.03[E], would be analyzed under the Model Penal Code's original rape definition, found in Section 213.1.⁴² Under that provision, rape occurs when "a male has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife if he compels her to submit by force." Because this definition is silent regarding the applicable mens rea, the Code provides that each material element is established if the defendant acted purposely, knowingly, or recklessly with respect thereto.⁴³

Therefore, Ds in Morgan could be convicted of rape if they purposely, knowingly, or recklessly compelled the victim to have sexual intercourse by force, but they would not be guilty of rape if they negligently compelled her. For example, if Ds realized that X's statement to them about his wife's "kinkiness" might be false, and yet they consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that V was not consenting, then a jury could conclude that they recklessly compelled V, and their mistaken belief that she consented would be no defense.⁴⁴ In contrast, if a jury believed that Ds were so clueless that they genuinely were unaware of the possibility that her resistance was real, then the defendants would not be guilty of rape. This would be so because, in this latter scenario, Ds negligently compelled V by force, whereas the offense requires proof of recklessness or a more culpable state of mind.

[B] Exception...