I have had something sticking in my craw ever since I heard about this case and just now I put my finger on what it was: the doctrine of Mistake of Fact. We learn about this and myriad other exotic legal animals in law school and I had to go that far back to remember this one; that is, I have never
encountered Mistake of Fact in the wild, as it were, in 36 years of of lawyering. So I looked it up in Texas:
Texas Penal Code
Sec. 8.02. MISTAKE OF FACT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.
(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.
That is a very bare bones mistake of fact statute and so I looked more.The fullest discussion of the mistake of fact defense in Texas law is in Celis v State, 354 S.W. 3rd 7.
Sometimes a person has taken due care to avoid risk, but he has made a reasonable mistake about some fact surrounding the offense. He has intentionally done the “bad act,” but if the facts were as he reasonably believed them to be, he would not have committed any offense.52
FN52. See, e.g., People v. Watkins, 2 Cal.App. 4th 589, 594, 3 Cal.Rptr. 563, 566 (Cal.Ct.App.1992), in which the California court explained the common-law doctrine of mistake-of-fact:To determine whether a mistake of fact applies we must assume the facts were as the defendant perceived them. If under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would not have constituted a crime, the defense applies. Conversely, if under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would still have been unlawful, the defense does not apply.Id. (citations omitted).. FN52. See, e.g., People v. Watkins, 2 Cal.App. 4th 589, 594, 3 Cal.Rptr. 563, 566 (Cal.Ct.App.1992), in which the California court explained the common-law doctrine of mistake-of-fact:To determine whether a mistake of fact applies we must assume the facts were as the defendant perceived them. If under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would not have constituted a crime, the defense applies. Conversely, if under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would still have been unlawful, the defense does not apply.Id. (citations omitted).
It has always bothered me about the Guyger-Jean case that from the facts, and now we have a full statement of the facts as the police believe them to be, Guyger really did mistake the facts, a whole slew of them, but really, sincerely did mistake them, and acted on her mistaken factual beliefs. Here repeated words on her 911 call: "I thought it was my apartment," apologizing to Mr. Jean, crying, one really comes away from those believing that she really believed. If those facts had been real, if it was her apartment, if Jean had been a burglar, would a crime have been committed? I think so but now that I have put my finger on the doctrine of Mistake of Fact, I am troubled. From the little, little little little research I have done (the above two sources and one other) I do not think Texas law gives Guyger cover under Mistake of Fact but I could be wrong! Amber Guyger will be judged under all of Texas law, including its Mistake of Fact doctrine, against what the reasonable person would have believed and how (s)he would have acted under the identical circumstances. The 911 call is Guyger's subjective reality. In Anglo-American law one's subjective reality is never a complete defense. Sincere, subjective belief is a precondition for application of the objective standard, the "reasonable man." I do not believe--AT ALL--that a jury of Amber Guyger's peers will conclude that her subjective reality was reasonable, that they, the jury, would have made the same mistakes of fact and would have acted on them exactly as she did. And it is the "reasonable man," not the "reasonable cop," standard.
encountered Mistake of Fact in the wild, as it were, in 36 years of of lawyering. So I looked it up in Texas:
Texas Penal Code
Sec. 8.02. MISTAKE OF FACT. (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.
(b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.
That is a very bare bones mistake of fact statute and so I looked more.The fullest discussion of the mistake of fact defense in Texas law is in Celis v State, 354 S.W. 3rd 7.
Sometimes a person has taken due care to avoid risk, but he has made a reasonable mistake about some fact surrounding the offense. He has intentionally done the “bad act,” but if the facts were as he reasonably believed them to be, he would not have committed any offense.52
FN52. See, e.g., People v. Watkins, 2 Cal.App. 4th 589, 594, 3 Cal.Rptr. 563, 566 (Cal.Ct.App.1992), in which the California court explained the common-law doctrine of mistake-of-fact:To determine whether a mistake of fact applies we must assume the facts were as the defendant perceived them. If under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would not have constituted a crime, the defense applies. Conversely, if under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would still have been unlawful, the defense does not apply.Id. (citations omitted).. FN52. See, e.g., People v. Watkins, 2 Cal.App. 4th 589, 594, 3 Cal.Rptr. 563, 566 (Cal.Ct.App.1992), in which the California court explained the common-law doctrine of mistake-of-fact:To determine whether a mistake of fact applies we must assume the facts were as the defendant perceived them. If under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would not have constituted a crime, the defense applies. Conversely, if under this assumed state of facts the defendant's actions would still have been unlawful, the defense does not apply.Id. (citations omitted).
It has always bothered me about the Guyger-Jean case that from the facts, and now we have a full statement of the facts as the police believe them to be, Guyger really did mistake the facts, a whole slew of them, but really, sincerely did mistake them, and acted on her mistaken factual beliefs. Here repeated words on her 911 call: "I thought it was my apartment," apologizing to Mr. Jean, crying, one really comes away from those believing that she really believed. If those facts had been real, if it was her apartment, if Jean had been a burglar, would a crime have been committed? I think so but now that I have put my finger on the doctrine of Mistake of Fact, I am troubled. From the little, little little little research I have done (the above two sources and one other) I do not think Texas law gives Guyger cover under Mistake of Fact but I could be wrong! Amber Guyger will be judged under all of Texas law, including its Mistake of Fact doctrine, against what the reasonable person would have believed and how (s)he would have acted under the identical circumstances. The 911 call is Guyger's subjective reality. In Anglo-American law one's subjective reality is never a complete defense. Sincere, subjective belief is a precondition for application of the objective standard, the "reasonable man." I do not believe--AT ALL--that a jury of Amber Guyger's peers will conclude that her subjective reality was reasonable, that they, the jury, would have made the same mistakes of fact and would have acted on them exactly as she did. And it is the "reasonable man," not the "reasonable cop," standard.
