Also known as: mistake of fact standard · mistake-of-fact standards · mistake of fact
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
3 senses
A standard under which an actor remains liable for an intentional tort such as trespass or conversion despite an honest mistake of fact about ownership, boundaries, or authority. The mistake supplies no defense unless the possessor or owner induced it through conduct.
A standard under which an actor remains liable for an intentional tort such as trespass or conversion despite an honest mistake of fact about ownership, boundaries, or authority. The mistake supplies no defense unless the possessor or owner induced it through conduct.
Miles Montgomery saw an approaching figure raise an arm in the dark and struck first with a stick. The figure was a jogger stretching, not an assailant, and the jogger had done nothing to create the impression of threat. Because the jogger's privilege to be there rested on no fault of Montgomery, the mistake supplied no defense to battery.
A standard permitting reformation of an unambiguous 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.
Mohan Malhotra's will left his donor-advised fund at Helping Hands to one charity. He maintained a second account under a different email that he always treated as part of the same gift. Clear and convincing evidence showed the omission resulted from a mistake of expression about the number of accounts, so the court reformed the will to include both.
A standard under which a mistake of fact constitutes a defense if the mistake negates the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense.
Marco Marquez carried a firearm believing his peace-officer status under a statute exempted him from licensing requirements. The statute did not cover his position. Because the mistake concerned a matter of fact about his classification rather than the legal effect of the statute itself, the defense failed.
A standard permitting reformation of an unambiguous 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.
A standard under which a mistake of fact constitutes a defense if the mistake negates the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
No. An intentional entry onto land possessed by another remains a trespass even when the entrant holds an honest and reasonable belief about ownership or boundaries, provided the possessor did not induce the mistake.
Maria Morales created a trust that allocated low-basis assets to charity and a retirement account to her niece. Both parties had mistakenly believed the allocation would minimize estate tax. Clear and convincing evidence established the mistake of law regarding tax consequences and the settlor's actual intention, so the court reformed the trust terms.
Reformation is available when clear and convincing evidence establishes both that a mistake of fact or law affected specific terms and what the donor's actual intention was. Direct evidence contradicting the text may be considered.
Mason McCarthy engaged in sexual intercourse after the complainant hugged and kissed him and initiated the act. He honestly believed she consented. The jury instruction on reasonable and good-faith mistake of fact was required because the evidence supported a finding that the mistake negated the required mental state for forcible rape.
Ming Ma took an unmarried girl from her father's custody after she told him she was eighteen and he had reasonable grounds for believing her. The girl was under sixteen. Because the statute imposed strict liability on the age element, the mistake of fact supplied no defense.
The defendant must show that the mistake was genuine and directly negated the knowledge element required by the offense. Visible facts or prior training that establish actual knowledge will defeat the defense even if the defendant claims a sincere belief to the contrary.
In criminal law the defense turns on whether the mistake actually negates the required mental state. Reasonableness is not an independent requirement. In tort law reasonableness is irrelevant because even a reasonable uninduced mistake supplies no defense.
…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…