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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.
1) If the law is not published.
2) If the accused relies on law or decree that was later
abolished or found to be unconstitutional.
3) When the accused relies on a court decision that was
later
overturned.
4) 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.