Which defenses are recognized for a specific-intent crime?

• A. Involuntary intoxication only
• B. Voluntary intoxication and mistake of fact
• C. Self-defense only
• D. Duress only

Answer: (B)

Specific-intent crimes hinge on a particular mental state beyond the act itself. To defeat that required state, two defenses are typically recognized: voluntary intoxication and mistake of fact. Voluntary intoxication can prevent the formation or realization of the specific intent the crime requires, so the defendant may not have the mental element necessary for conviction. Mistake of fact can also negate the required intent if the defendant’s belief about the facts would have led them to act differently; when that belief removes the specific mental state, the crime may not be proven.

For example, if burglary requires the intent to commit a felony inside a building, a mistaken belief about whose property it is can destroy the required intent, making a defense available. Other defenses like self-defense or duress address different justifications and are not tied to the specific mental-state requirement in the same way. Involuntary intoxication can be a defense in broader contexts, but the pairing emphasized here for specific-intent crimes centers on voluntary intoxication and mistake of fact.