Answer to Bar Question 02/11/08

(B) is the best response, because Mel's mistaken belief that the briefcase was his own prevented him from having the required mental state for robbery.  Robbery is the: (1) taking, (2) of personal property of another, (3) from the other's person or presence, (4) by force or intimidation, (5) with the intent to permanently deprive him of it.The intent required for robbery is the intent to use force to take "the property of another."  Therefore, if defendant mistakenly (even unreasonably) believes that the property in question is his own, the required "intent to take the property of another" is lacking.  The fact that that mistake was brought about by voluntary intoxication - and the fact that the mistake may have been "unreasonable" - makes no difference. 

(A) is not the best response, because (1) the absence of threats would not prevent this from being robbery; and (2) the intoxication would not necessarily prevent this from being robbery.Robbery is the taking of personal property of another from the latter's person or presence, "by force or intimidation." A taking can involve force without involving threats.  Here, Mel struggled with the owner, and knocked him to the floor, so the requisite force was present even though Mel made no threats.Also, the fact that Mel was drunk would not necessarily prevent him from being guilty - it was only Mel's mistaken belief that the briefcase was his that caused him to avoid guilt.  (It's true that the intoxication may have been what caused Mel to have the mistaken belief - but no matter why the mistaken belief occurred, Mel would have avoided guilt.)  To the extent that this choice relies on an absence of threats, and the existence of the intoxication, to explain the result, it's twice-wrong even though it states the correct outcome. 

(C) is not the best response, because voluntary intoxication can still prevent the required specific intent from existing.Robbery requires an intent to take "the property of another."  If defendant fails to have the requisite intent, whatever the reason, the crime has not been committed.  Here, Mel thought the briefcase was his, so he lacked the requisite intent to take "property of another."  The fact that the intoxication was "voluntary" would not make a difference, if for any reason (including intoxication) he lacked the requisite intent.   

(D) is not the best response, because mistake can be a defense to specific intent crimes.If a mistake of fact prevents the defendant from having the requisite intent for a "specific intent" crime, that mistake is indeed a defense.  Here, robbery requires an intent to take "the property of another."  If a mistake causes defendant to believe (whether reasonably or not) that the property is his own rather than another's, that mistake causes defendant not to meet the intent element for the crime.