Also known as: mistake of fact · mistake-of-fact rule · mistake of fact defense
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A limitation on the privilege of self-defense when the actor's use of force is met by force that the other is privileged to inflict because of a reasonable mistake of fact not caused by the actor's fault.
A limitation on the privilege of self-defense when the actor's use of force is met by force that the other is privileged to inflict because of a reasonable mistake of fact not caused by the actor's fault.
Maria Morales, believing an intruder was armed, used force to defend herself. The intruder was actually a police officer executing a lawful arrest. Because the officer's privilege rested on a reasonable mistake of fact not caused by Maria's fault, Maria cannot claim self-defense against the officer's use of force.
A ground for reforming a donative document when clear and convincing evidence shows that a mistake of fact or law affected specific terms and reveals the donor's true intention. Reformation is available even if the document is unambiguous.
Mason McCarthy's will left his donor-advised fund at Helping Hands to one charity. Clear and convincing evidence showed he maintained two accounts under different emails and always treated them as a single charitable resource. The court reforms the will to include the second account consistent with his proven intention.
A ground for reforming a donative document when clear and convincing evidence shows that a mistake of fact or law affected specific terms and reveals the donor's true intention. Reformation is available even if the document is unambiguous.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
During an arrest, an officer reasonably but mistakenly believed a bystander posed an immediate threat and used force. Because the mistake of fact was reasonable and not caused by the bystander's fault, the bystander cannot claim the officer lost the privilege of self-defense.
A mistake of fact is a defense when it negates the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required for a material element of the offense. If the defendant honestly believed a fact that, if true, would mean the mental state was absent, the prosecution cannot meet its burden.
No. The defense turns on whether the mistake actually negates the required mental state. An honest though unreasonable mistake can still defeat liability for offenses requiring purpose or knowledge, though reasonableness may bear on recklessness or negligence.
Meredith Maxwell's trust omitted a parcel she intended to include for her niece. Evidence proved by clear and convincing evidence that the omission resulted from a mistake of fact about the trust's contents and that her true intention was to convey both parcels. The court reforms the trust to match that intention.
Clear and convincing evidence must establish both that a mistake of fact or law affected specific terms and what the donor's true intention was. Direct evidence of intention contradicting the text and other extrinsic evidence may be considered.
Yes. Reformation is available when clear and convincing evidence shows a mistake of fact or law affected the terms and reveals the donor's intention, regardless of whether the document appears clear on its face.
…parties with respect to the use of the WPI have been completely and totally frustrated, that both ALCOA and Essex made a mutual mistake of fact in agreeing to use the WPI to escalate non-labor costs at Warrick. ALCOA is seeking reformation or equitable adjustment of the Molten Metal Agreement so that pursuant to count one of its…