(a) A person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in that conduct under a mistaken belief of fact unless:
(1) His factual mistake negatives the culpable mental state required for the commission of an offense; or
(2) The statute defining the offense or a statute related thereto expressly provides that such a factual mistake constitutes a defense or exemption; or
(3) The factual mistake is of a kind that supports a defense of justification as defined in Article 2 of Chapter 3 of this title.
(b) A person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in that conduct under a mistaken belief that it does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense, unless his mistaken belief is founded upon an official statement of the law contained in a statute or the latest judicial decision of the highest state or federal court which has decided on the matter.
(c) The burden of injecting the issue of mistake of law under subsection (b) of this section is on the defendant, but this does not shift the burden of proof.
(d) A mistake of law, other than as to the existence or meaning of the statute under which the defendant is prosecuted, is relevant to disprove the specific state of mental culpability required by the statute under which the defendant is prosecuted.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §325.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1990–2014 · leading case:
Boyd v. State, 960 So. 2d 717 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).
Boyd v. State, 960 So. 2d 717 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “" The Commentary to § 13A-2-6 explains that "[s]ubsection (b) codifies the universally accepted principal that generally ignorance or mistake of law is no defense.”
Traylor v. State, 43 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App. 2001).
“Code tit. 11, § 441(1) (1999); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 702-218(1) (1999); Idaho Code § 18-201 (1) (1999); Ill.”
Tuscaloosa Cnty. v. Teaster, 770 So. 2d 602 (Ala. 2000).
· cites it 3× “See Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-2-6(b). Section 13A-2-6(b) provides: “A person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in that conduct under a mistaken belief that it does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense, unless his mistaken belief is…”
Barney v. State, 42 So. 3d 170 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009).
“Section 13A-2-6, Ala. Code 1975, which became effective in 1977, long before the enactment of § 13A-6-111, Ala.”
Hicks v. State, 153 So. 3d 53 (Ala. 2014).
“See § 13A-2-6(b), Ala.Code 1975 (“A person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in that conduct under a mistaken belief that it does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense.”
Horn v. State, 908 So. 2d 303 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004).
“The general mistake of fact provision in § 13A-2-6 is in agreement with this element.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-2-6(a)(1) — 1 case
Traylor v. State, 43 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App. 2001).
“Code tit. 11, § 441(1) (1999); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 702-218(1) (1999); Idaho Code § 18-201 (1) (1999); Ill.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-2-6(b) — 4 cases
Tuscaloosa Cnty. v. Teaster, 770 So. 2d 602 (Ala. 2000).
“See Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-2-6(b). Section 13A-2-6(b) provides: “A person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in that conduct under a mistaken belief that it does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense, unless his mistaken belief is…”
Boyd v. State, 960 So. 2d 717 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).
“" The Commentary to § 13A-2-6 explains that "[s]ubsection (b) codifies the universally accepted principal that generally ignorance or mistake of law is no defense.”
Hicks v. State, 153 So. 3d 53 (Ala. 2014).
“See § 13A-2-6(b), Ala.Code 1975 (“A person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in that conduct under a mistaken belief that it does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.