Sometimes you just made an honest mistake. You may have a mistake of fact defense if you reasonably believed you were acting in accordance with the law and had no intention to violate the law. Each case is fact-specific. The court will look at the facts and circumstances that led to your conduct. The issue will be whether there was a misunderstanding by you of the situation.
The fact that you were mentally ill and you thought you were acting legally is not a defense.
In shoplifting matters, there could potentially be a mistake of fact defense if you reasonably believed the property you took was paid for and you had absolutely no intention to deprive the store owner of their property. Again, to have a valid defense, your mistake or misunderstanding is a defense only if it was honest and reasonable. When criminal intent is clear under the circumstances, or if it can be shown that you knew what you were doing and intended to do what you were doing, there cannot be a mistake of fact defense.
For instance, let’s say you find a credit card and you put it in your wallet intending to destroy it later. A week later, you go to the store and mistakenly use the card to pay for an item. If you are charged with fraud, you may have some valid arguments whether you intended to commit a crime. But if the police find 5 other credit cards in your car that don’t belong to you, it would be unreasonable to say that you didn’t know what you were doing when used the card in your wallet.
For a free consultation, Call 213-252-1000
Mistake of Law Defense
The defense of mistake of fact and the defense of mistake of law are two separate legal concepts in criminal law that defendants can use to assert their innocence.
A mistake of fact defense is based on the defendant’s assertion that they made a mistake in their understanding of the facts at the time of the alleged crime. The defendant may argue that they did not intend to commit a crime, but mistakenly believed that their actions were legal or justified under the circumstances. In this defense, the mistake must be reasonable and not based on a negligent or reckless disregard for the truth.
For example, if a person takes someone else’s property, but mistakenly believed that the property belonged to them, they could use the defense of mistake of fact to argue that they did not intend to steal the property because they believed they had a legitimate claim to it.
On the other hand, a mistake of law defense is based on the defendant’s assertion that they did not know that their actions were illegal or that they were based on a mistaken interpretation of the law. In this defense, the mistake must be reasonable, and not based on a reckless disregard for the law.
For example, if a person possessed a certain type of firearm that they believed was legal, but later found out that it was illegal under state law, they could use the defense of mistake of law to argue that they did not know their actions were illegal at the time.
It’s important to note that while both defenses may be used to assert innocence, the standard for proving each defense can be different. Mistake of fact generally requires that the mistake was reasonable and made in good faith, while mistake of law generally requires that the defendant relied on an official source or authority, such as a court ruling or a statute, to support their belief that their actions were legal.
Mistake of fact is often compared with mistake of law. It is well known that ignorance of the law or mistake of law is not a defense to a crime. A simple example is when you drive at 90 mph on the highway and you get pulled over. You can’t claim as a defense that you didn’t know the speed limit laws.
If the law in question is a new law and there is a question as to its date of publication, there could possibly be a defense of mistake of law under very limited circumstances. Also, if a law is still developing and different officials have different interpretations of the law, you may have a defense due to uncertainty regarding the consequences of violation of that law.
