People v. Lee Kong

People v. Lee Kong 95 Cal. 666, (1892) is a case in which the defendant claimed the "impossibility" defense to charges of assault, on the basis of a mistake in fact.cite web
author=
url=http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:j2KTSikI-TAJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/C048825.DOC+%22People+v.+Lee+Kong%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
title=The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Kenneth Wayne Chance
publisher=
accessdate=2008-01-16] The ultimate issue (law) is this case is whether the defendant's actions and intent warrant criminal sanctions even though he failed to achieve a criminal act because the act itself was factually impossible to commit.Citation
last =Bonnie
first =Richard J.
author-link =
last2 =Coughlin
first2 =Anne M.
author2-link =
title =Criminal Law
place=
publisher =The Foundation Press
year =1997
location =Westbury, NY
volume =
edition =
pages=p. 248
id =
isbn = 1-56662-448-7]

Circumstances

A policman cut a hole through the roof of Lee Kong's building in order to observe Kong gamble. Kong, knowing of the hole, fired his gun through the hole roof at the spot where he thought a policeman was located. Because the officer had moved from that spot to another, the shot did not hit him. [cite web
author=
url=http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:PEhZSlUKBGEJ:www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/F030545.PDF+%22People+v.+Lee+Kong%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us
title=The People,Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Carrie Joe Vang, Defendant and Appeallant
publisher=
accessdate=2008-01-16] Kong claimed that since he was mistaken in fact, it was impossible for him to commit the crime. Kong was convicted and appealed to the California Supreme Court.

Decision

The California Supreme Court stated that the exact location of the policeman, as long as he was is in range of being shot by the defendant "does not go to the question of present ability.” [cite web
url =http://books.google.com/books?id=TtgKAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA271&lpg=RA1-PA271&dq=%22people+v+lee+kong%22&source=web&ots=QMBwF7cqUV&sig=B2RUvEIyCHLisQG69ZKmDIuH574
title =Lawyers' Reports Annotated
publisher =Lawyers' Reports Annotated
date =1902] Since the defendant had the intention and present ability to commit the assault, the fact the he was mistaken as to the location of the intended victim affords no defense for his act. Therefore Kong's conviction was upheld. [cite web
author=Idaho, Idaho Code Commission
url=http://books.google.com/books?id=fB4eAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=%22people+v+lee+kong%22&source=web&ots=GcXmq0xY9R&sig=TSahDkcuObu-eQDVYtdKKZUEqVk
title=Penal Code of State of Idaho, 1901
publisher=
accessdate=2008-01-16]

ignificance

This is one of the first in a series of cases that imposed liability for an attempted felony even though the crime was impossible to commit because the Defendant was mistaken in fact. It was reinforced by decisions that followed such as that used later in State v. Mitchell and "United States v. Thomas".cite web
author= George P. Fletcher
url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lSnomFVuka8C&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=%22state+v+mitchell%22+1902&source=web&ots=UcOMerGz4M&sig=6-KfzObs3E-21vaJ6U-0KhpWTD4
title=Rethinking Crimimal Law
publisher=Oxford University Press
pages= p. 149
accessdate=2008-01-09 ]

ee also

*Impossibility defense
*State v. Mitchell

Footnotes

External links

* [http://books.google.com/books?id=bX88AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA535&lpg=PA535&dq=%22people+v+lee+kong%22&source=web&ots=E2Sc_ATF3C&sig=mxSZLU8rw0ce2DUd36AiYUJQ_qs Ruling Case Law Developed Established Decisions]