Also known as: mistake of fact · mistakes of fact · mistake-of-fact doctrine · mistake of fact defense · factual mistake
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A defense that negates the mental state required for an offense when the defendant honestly but erroneously believes in a fact that would render the conduct lawful or noncriminal. The defense succeeds only when the mistake directly eliminates the purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence element the prosecution must prove.
A defense that negates the mental state required for an offense when the defendant honestly but erroneously believes in a fact that would render the conduct lawful or noncriminal. The defense succeeds only when the mistake directly eliminates the purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence element the prosecution must prove.
Musa Mensah saw Malcolm McKinley raise a fist during a heated argument and struck first in response. McKinley was actually attempting only to push Mensah away from a falling object. Because Mensah's belief that he faced an imminent attack was reasonable and not caused by his own fault, the privilege to defend attaches and McKinley cannot recover for the resulting battery.
An equitable principle permitting reformation of a donative document, even if unambiguous, when clear and convincing evidence establishes that a mistake of fact or law affected specific terms and reveals the donor's true intention.
Mohan Malhotra's will left his "endowed chair funds at Northfield College" to his granddaughter Mariam Mansour. College records showed the college owned the funds, while Malhotra actually held a donor-advised fund he repeatedly told his planner would pass to Mariam. Clear and convincing evidence of the mistaken description and Malhotra's true intent allows the court to reform the will to substitute the donor-advised fund.
An equitable principle permitting reformation of a donative document, even if unambiguous, when clear and convincing evidence establishes that a mistake of fact or law affected specific terms and reveals the donor's true intention.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Musa Mensah, a corrections officer, carried a firearm believing his position exempted him from licensing requirements under a statute he had misread. The statute contained no such exemption. Because the error concerned the legal effect of the statute rather than an underlying fact, the mistake-of-fact doctrine provides no defense and Mensah remains subject to prosecution.
An officer obtained a warrant describing the items to be seized but the description contained an incorrect address due to a clerical transposition of numbers. The officer reasonably believed the warrant authorized the search of the correct residence. Because the mistake was one of fact and objectively reasonable under the circumstances, the officer receives qualified immunity from the ensuing Fourth Amendment claim.
Malcolm McKinley testified that Meredith Maxwell willingly accompanied him to a hotel room, initiated physical contact, and appeared to consent throughout the encounter. Maxwell later claimed she had not consented. Because evidence of Maxwell's conduct could support a reasonable and good-faith belief in consent, the court must instruct the jury on the mistake-of-fact defense.
In criminal law the defense succeeds whenever the honest mistake negates the required mental state, even if the belief was unreasonable, although recklessness or negligence in forming the belief may still support liability for a lesser offense. In the self-defense context the Restatement requires the mistake to be reasonable.
A mistake of fact negates the mental state when it concerns an underlying circumstance that would make the conduct innocent. A mistake about the legal effect of a statute generally does not excuse liability unless the statute itself recognizes a defense based on good-faith reliance on an official interpretation.
Matthew Martinez executed a will leaving "my 20 percent of Precision Plastics, Inc." to his plant supervisor Meredith Maxwell. An outdated capitalization table caused Martinez to believe he still held that interest, when he actually owned only 5 percent plus a 15 percent stake in a related LLC he had described to family as part of the same gift. Clear and convincing proof of the mistake and Martinez's intent supports reformation to convey both interests to Maxwell.
Yes. Both the Restatement (Third) of Property and the Uniform Probate Code authorize reformation of even unambiguous donative documents when clear and convincing evidence shows a mistake of fact or law affected specific terms and establishes the donor's true intention.
Direct statements by the donor to third parties, consistent course-of-conduct evidence, and the existence of a closely related asset the donor actually owned can together meet the standard when they demonstrate both the mistake and the donor's contrary intention.
…out of a second marriage when the first marriage had not in fact been terminated. ( Id. at pp. 801, 804-805.) However, the mistake of fact defense would not have been applicable if the first marriage had in fact been terminated. In this situation there is no mistake of fact; rather, the facts as they actually exist preclude a…