If mistake of fact is offered as a defense to a specific intent crime, the mistake need not have been reasonable, but if it is offered as a defense to a general intent crime, it has to have been reasonable for it to be a valid defense to the crime. A mistake of fact occurs when a person believes an incorrect piece of information about a central element of a crime. You do, however, need to distinguish between specific intent crimes, and general intent crimes, when analyzing mistake of fact. In most situations, the mistake must be reasonable. Insanity. Mistake of fact is a defense to a crime where the mistaken belief, if it were true, would negate a mental state that’s an element of the crime. In California, this is referred to as a Mayberry Defense 2.Again, to avail yourself of this defense, you would have had to possess a bona fide and reasonable belief that the other party voluntarily consented to sexual relations with you. Mistake of fact is often raised in rape cases where one party claims that the other gave consent. self-defense-reasonable belief force is necessary to defend from imminent unlawful deadly force. Will any mistake do?

Specific intent- mistake does not need to be reasonable. But even an unreasonable mistake of fact can at least at times provide a defense if it negates a required specific intent. For general intent crimes, which require only the intent to act in a certain way regardless of criminal intent, the general rule is that a mistake of fact must be reasonable to excuse criminal liability. general intent- mistake must be reasonable.

Mistake of Fact Criminal Defenses. Common law- M'Naughten rule- unable to know right from wrong. Criminal Law (Defenses (mistake of fact (general intent = mistake must be…: Criminal Law (Defenses, Crimes Involving Property, Elements of Crime, Inchoate Crimes(specific intent crimes) (NOT B/C reckless or negligent), Crimes Involving Persons, Accomplice Liability = individuals that are accessories to a crime committed by someone else ) Since mistake of fact is used to demonstrate that the defendant did not have the requisite intent to commit the crime he is charged with, the general rule is that mistake of fact is not available as a defense against strict liability crimes where no intent is required in the commission of the crime. See People v. Vogel, 46 Cal. A person who buys stolen property believing that the seller was a valid owner of the property, for example, has made a mistake of fact. 2d 798 (1956). strict liability- not a defense. A mistake of fact may sometimes mean that, while a person has committed the physical element of an offence, because they were labouring under a mistake of fact, they never formed the required mens rea, and so will escape liability for offences that require mens rea. For general intent crimes, mistake of fact is a defense only if the mistake is reasonable.

No. Exceptions… Moral wrong doctrine; Permits conviction of D whose mistake of fact was reasonable if the thing he was intending to do was an immoral act which justified conviction.