Also known as: mistake of fact · mistake of facts · error of fact
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
3 senses
A belief about a factual circumstance that, if true, would mean the defendant lacked the culpable mental state required for the offense. The defense applies when the mistake negates purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence for a material element.
A belief about a factual circumstance that, if true, would mean the defendant lacked the culpable mental state required for the offense. The defense applies when the mistake negates purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence for a material element.
Carlos directs workers to remove copper pipes after an old email leads him to believe the lot owner abandoned them. He is charged with theft requiring knowledge that the property belonged to another. His honest belief that the pipes were discarded negates the mental state element and defeats liability.
An erroneous belief about an existing fact that justifies reformation of a donative document to match the transferor's intention when shown by clear and convincing evidence.
Dennis's will names only one donor-advised account at Helping Hands Fund for Elm Council. Evidence shows he maintained two accounts under different emails and consistently referred to both as the account for the shelter. The court reforms the will to include the second account after clear and convincing proof establishes the omission resulted from a mistake of fact about the document's terms.
An erroneous belief about an existing fact that supports a privilege against tort liability when the belief is reasonable.
Carla sees a flashing alarm light and watches Jack reach into his jacket while advancing on tellers. She tackles him to stop what she believes is an imminent robbery. Jack sues for battery after it turns out he carried only an envelope. Carla avoids liability because her belief about the threat was both honest and objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
An erroneous belief about an existing fact that justifies reformation of a donative document to match the transferor's intention when shown by clear and convincing evidence.
An erroneous belief about an existing fact that supports a privilege against tort liability when the belief is reasonable.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Williams testifies that the complainant willingly accompanied him to a hotel room, initiated physical contact, and appeared to consent throughout the encounter. He requests an instruction on reasonable good-faith mistake as to consent. The instruction is warranted because evidence supports a finding that his belief negated the required mental state for forcible rape.
Prince takes an unmarried girl under sixteen from her father's possession. She tells him she is eighteen and he has reasonable grounds for believing her. The jury findings establish that his mistaken belief about her age prevents the taking from being unlawful under the statute.
A mistake of fact provides a defense when it negates the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required for a material element of the offense. The defense succeeds if the defendant's honest belief, even if unreasonable, means the prosecution cannot prove the required mental state beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes. When an offense requires knowledge of a legal status such as whether material is controlled, a good-faith mistake about that status can negate the knowledge element in the same manner as a traditional mistake of fact.
Jessica executes a new will after a false rumor that her daughter will lose her commercial driver's license. Clear and convincing evidence shows the revocation rested solely on that mistaken belief about an objective fact. The court reforms the governing instrument to restore the original will's terms matching Jessica's true intention.
Clear and convincing evidence must show both that a mistake of fact or law affected specific terms of the document and what the transferor's intention actually was. Direct evidence contradicting the plain text and other extrinsic evidence may be considered.
Yes. A defendant who uses defensive force based on a mistake of fact avoids liability if the defendant actually believed facts that would justify the force and a reasonable person in the same position would have held that belief.
…II. DISCUSSION In People v. Mayberry , supra , 15 Cal.3d 143, this court held that a defendant's reasonable and good faith mistake of fact regarding a person's consent to sexual intercourse is a defense to rape. ( Id. at p. 155.) Mayberry is predicated on the notion that under section 26,[^maj-4] reasonable mistake of fact…