Court Opinion

ID: 9618924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:19:29.50636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:33.711872
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION OF
ABE, J.
The defendant contends that the “English courts have recognized mistake of fact as a defense in criminal prosecutions since 1638 Levett’s Case, reported in Cook’s Case, Cro. Car. 537, 538, 79 Eng. Rep. 1063, 1064 (K.B. 1639).” He also argues that mistake of fact has been recognized as a common law defense premised on lack of mens rea, on the principle that where an accused based his action on the existence of certain facts, which if they existed would render the act innocent, such act should be deemed innocent.
I do not have any quarrel with the statement and principle stated above. However, is the principle applicable here?
In a hypothetical case where A and B go on a hunting expedition and A shoots and kills B, and A is charged with premeditated homicide or murder, A’s defense that he shot a moving object behind some shrubbery thinking it to be a wild pig, which in fact was B, would be valid.
However, assuming that A steals a diamond ring valued at $1,000 from B and is charged with larceny first degree— the offense of stealing an article valued at more than $100 —A’s defense that he thought that the diamond was an imitation diamond valued at $50 should not be a valid defense to the charge of larceny first degree.
Under our statute, it is a criminal offense for a man to have sexual intercourse with a female not his wife.1 Thus, it appears to me that the defendant when he had sex relations *235with the female in this case knew or should have known that he was by his act committing a criminal offense. The age of the consenting female only determined the gravity of the offense. Here the mistake as to the age of the female is analogous to the mistaken opinion as to the value of the ring in the hypothetical larceny case.
Under the status of our law on sex offenses, I am compelled to agree that mistake of fact as to age of the consenting female is not a valid defense and, therefore, I concur with the majority of this court in affirming the judgment of the trial court.

HRS § 768-13 adultery with a married woman, not his wife.
HRS § 768-17 fornication with an unmarried woman.