Wilson v. Tard

593 F.Supp. 1091 (1984)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was charged with the shooting death of his friend Rodney Brown while they and two other men were discussing which of them should be the first to use some heroin in their possession. P raised as a defense an alleged mistake of fact. P pointed the gun at his friend in a joking attempt to frighten him. P had removed the magazine of bullets from the gun before he aimed it, and contended that because of his unfamiliarity with the weapon he believed he had disarmed it. One bullet remained in the chamber, and when P aimed the gun at his friend and pulled the trigger, it discharged and fatally injured Rodney. P argued, however, that his belief that the gun was unloaded when he pulled the trigger was a reasonable mistake under the circumstances, and that therefore he did not possess the level of mental culpability, recklessness for manslaughter. The trial court stressed that the determination of P's state of mind was critical to proof of the offense of manslaughter. After summarizing New Jersey's statute on mistake, he told the jury that the burden lay on the P to 'prove by a preponderance of the evidence' that he was mistaken in his belief that the gun was not loaded, and that 'he arrived at the conclusion reasonably.' He stated that the mistake would be a defense if the jury could find that 'P reasonably arrived at that conclusion underlying the mistake and it negates the culpable mental state required to establish the offense.' The judge further explained that if the jury concluded that P's mistake did negate the culpable mental state for manslaughter it should consider whether P was guilty of aggravated assault. Ignorance or mistake is not available if P would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed. If that is the case, P's ignorance or mistake of would reduce the grade and degree of the offense of which he may be convicted to those of the offense of which he would be guilty had the situation been as he supposed. The jury was reinstructed as it was unclear about the definition of mistake as it pertains to a reduction in charge. It was reinstructed again and eventually returned a verdict of simple manslaughter. P appealed his conviction, and it was affirmed. The Supreme Court of New Jersey refused application. P sought a writ of habeas corpus.