State v. Bougneit
1980 Wisc. App. LEXIS 3163, 97 Wis. 2d 687, 294 N.W.2d 675 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The defense of mistake of fact requires an erroneous perception of existing facts that negates the required criminal intent; it does not apply to a miscalculation or wrong guess about a future event.
Facts:
- Robert W. Bougneit was in a restaurant harassing customers and waitresses, including making noises like a dog.
- When Robert Fick entered with two women, Bougneit barked, made a grabbing motion toward one woman, and made sexual comments.
- Fick demanded an apology, but Bougneit challenged him, saying "let's go outside."
- Outside, Bougneit went to his truck, retrieved a shotgun, and aimed it at Fick.
- After Fick put his hands up, Bougneit fired two shots over Fick's head.
- As Fick began moving toward the restaurant, Bougneit stated, "I’m going to blow your f- brains out."
- From a distance of six feet, Bougneit fired a third shot, which struck Fick in the face.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert W. Bougneit was charged with attempted first-degree murder in a Wisconsin trial court.
- At the conclusion of his trial, Bougneit requested a jury instruction on the defense of mistake of fact.
- The trial court judge refused to give the requested instruction.
- The jury found Bougneit guilty of attempted first-degree murder.
- Bougneit (appellant) appealed his conviction to the intermediate appellate court, arguing the trial court erred by not giving the mistake of fact instruction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's claim that he misjudged the future position of his victim when firing a weapon, intending to miss but accidentally hitting him when the victim moved, constitute a mistake of fact entitling him to a specific jury instruction?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
No. A defendant's misjudgment of a future event is not a mistake of fact. The mistake of fact defense applies only when a defendant has an erroneous perception of facts as they currently exist, which in turn prevents the formation of criminal intent. Here, Bougneit was not mistaken about Fick's actual, existing position; rather, he claims he made an incorrect assumption about where Fick would be in the future when the shot was fired. The court explains that a fact is something that has already taken place, not what might happen. Bougneit's action was a voluntary guess based on known facts, and he guessed wrong. This is properly characterized as a "but I didn't mean to" defense, which goes to the general element of intent, but it is not the specific legal defense of mistake of fact.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial clarification of the mistake of fact defense by distinguishing it from a mistake in judgment. It establishes that the defense is rooted in a misunderstanding of a present, existing state of affairs, not a failed prediction about a future one. By narrowing the scope of the defense, the court prevents its application to cases where a defendant simply miscalculates the outcome of their intentional actions. This precedent solidifies that the defense must negate the requisite mens rea through an error about a current fact, not through a poor guess about a future contingency.
