In many situations, the persons who commit the crime wish to argue that they had never intended to commit a crime and the offense that happened was a result of a mistake of facts regarding the situations of the crime or a misinterpretation of the concerned law at the time. Such mistakes of facts can be applied to a wide variety of criminal activities, whereas mistakes of law are rarely accepted as complete protection against the crime.

Criminal Defense of Mistake

The person who uses the mistake of facts typically has some misinterpretation about the law at the time they commit a crime. Did not intend to commit a crime, did not understand the legal issues involved in the situation, or did not clearly understand the right from the wrong at the time of committing the crime. These defenses rarely occur in court because they are often not authorized by the judges. The person who commits the crime must need to have certain situations present at the time or should need enough evidence to prove that the mistake is justifiable and not a strategy.

Mistakes of Fact

Mistake of facts arises when an accused misunderstands an incident or fact and denies the element constituting the crime. For example, if a person is accused of theft but believes that the property, he has taken is his own, then this misunderstanding negates any intention to expropriate another person’s property. However, an important criterion is that this mistake of fact must be honest and reasonable. Therefore, the accused cannot then claim that he or she was mistaken when they knew the circumstances. And also, the mistake must seem reasonable to the judges. If the same individual is constantly said that the property is not his and that he cannot take it, it is no longer sensible for him to think that he can legally obtain the property.

Usually, the mistake is serious enough to expose some or all of the charges against the person. For Specific intend offenses, lack of intention is an important issue that can rule out a specific intent crime and lead to the person’s acquittal. Since in theft, the intent is to permanently deprive the owner of the property, this lack of intention and even the returning the subject knowing the property does not belong to him can eliminate the charge of criminal action. The mistake itself must be relevant, honest, and reasonable.

Not Using the Mistakes Later

Although the persons can reason of numerous ways to defend themselves against the criminal charge, they cannot use the mistake in the later stage of the case. If there is any potential conflict in the court, the defense cannot have a valid claim to excuse the mistake of fact. As for theft, different aspects may affect the case like knowing that the property is not his or hers and also the opposite party telling the defendant that the property belongs to someone else. This is often not a mistake, however willful and intentional theft at that time.

Utilizing the Mistake of Fact

Many suspect people might not perceive what this defense is or the way to use it, and without a lawyer, it is usually not possible. However, to properly use this right of defense, the accused will need a criminal defense attorney. The lawyer will explain the mistake was honest, reasonable, and valid in the case based on what the accused did and the way it did not involve the intention to commit the offense. With a mistake of fact, an attorney can argue that the charges of specific intent are not appropriate. Provided that the accused had sufficient evidence to prove before the court of law that the charges are inconsistent with the activity, and may reasonably use this defense properly.

Denying the Element of Crime

An objection to the mistake of facts can explain that a particular fact did not exist or that the fact is well-founded. Others can use these defenses to contradict some necessary elements that allow these claims to stay within the case. This allows the defendant to be released from any liability in the offense. This defense may deny certain aspects of the prosecution’s case through misunderstanding or ignorance of the law in force at the time of the crime.

Mistake of Law

A mistake of law could be a defense that the accused misunderstood or was unaware of the law in its original form. The responsibility usually lies on the individuals and requires the knowledge of state or community law, and therefore, this defense solely applies in terribly restricted situations. For instance, a suspect cannot claim that he did not know that the murder was a crime, but he could claim that he did not know the ambiguous traffic law.

In particular, the mistake of law can serve as a defense in four limited situations.

• If the law is not published.
• If the accused relies on law or decree that was later abolished or found to be unconstitutional.
• When the accused relies on a court decision that was later overturned.
• Also, when the accused relies on an interpretation by a competent official.

Moreover, the defendant’s reliance on any one of these sources must have been rational, like the mistake of fact. Therefore, if it turns out that the law has evolved since then, the defendant cannot claim to have relied on the proceedings 200 years ago. It is conjointly necessary to note that, the reliance on civil servants’ interpretations may include judges, federal or state agencies, but not the reliance on the testimony of private lawyers. Therefore, it is important to make sure that the lawyer from whom you are seeking advice is knowledgeable and reliable.