It is a defense to a prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged to constitute the offense under a mistaken belief of fact if:
The statute defining the offense or a statute relating to the offense expressly provides that a mistaken belief of fact constitutes a defense; or
Mistaken belief of fact establishes a defense of justification provided by § 5-2-601 et seq.
Except as provided by subsection (c) of this section, a person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he or she engages in that conduct believing that the conduct does not as a matter of law constitute an offense.
It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged to constitute the offense believing that the conduct did not as a matter of law constitute an offense, if the actor acted in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law contained in:
A statute or other enactment afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous;
The latest judicial decision of the highest state or federal court that has decided the matter; or
An official interpretation of a public servant or agency charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation or administration of the law defining the offense.
Although ignorance or mistake of fact would otherwise afford a defense to the offense charged, the defense is not available if the defendant would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he or she supposed.
However, in a case described by subdivision (d)(1) of this section, the ignorance or mistake of fact of the defendant reduces the class or degree of the offense of which he or she may be convicted to that of the offense of which the defendant would be guilty had the situation been as he or she supposed.
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 culpable mental state required by the statute under which the defendant is prosecuted.
The Constitutionality of Affirmative Defenses to Criminal Charges, 29 Ark. L. Rev. 430.
Article, Ethical and Effective Representation in Arkansas Capital Trials, 60 Ark. L. Rev. 1.
Case Notes
Jury Instructions.
In a trial in which defendant was convicted of failure to pay a motor vehicle use tax in violation of § 26-18-202, the trial court did not err in giving an instruction that ignorance of the law is not a defense to a crime in the State of Arkansas; it is not inconsistent to instruct the jurors that ignorance will not acquit a defendant outright, while also instructing them of the state's burden to prove the culpable mental state required to commit the offense. Owens v. State, 354 Ark. 644, 128 S.W.3d 445 (2003).
Mistake of Law.
A prior Arkansas Supreme Court ruling on a completely different statute did not justify defendant's reliance on alleged “mistake of law.” Finley v. State, 282 Ark. 146, 666 S.W.2d 701 (1984).
Where the defendant neither relied on an invalid statute nor plead it as an affirmative defense, he was not entitled to rely on that statute. Fowler v. State, 283 Ark. 325, 676 S.W.2d 725 (1984).
Where defendant was charged with possession of gambling devices and a jury found him not guilty by mistake of law due to his reliance upon inapplicable law in operating his arcade business, defendant's assertion of the defense was an admission that he had engaged in illegal conduct and, because the jury found defendant's machines were illegal, the trial court did not err in ordering the machines forfeited and destroyed. Mullins v. State, 359 Ark. 414, 198 S.W.3d 504 (2004).
Official Interpretation.
The parole officer's silence on the question of whether the defendant could lawfully possess a firearm after the completion of his parole was not an “official statement of the law” under subdivision (c)(3) of this section. Fisher v. State, 290 Ark. 490, 720 S.W.2d 900 (1986).
Jester v. State, 239 S.W.3d 484 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 9דMistake of fact is an affirmative defense under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-206 . The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was mistaken in his belief of fact that he acted with legal justification to harvest timber on the property in question.”
Owens v. State, 128 S.W.3d 445 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 7דHe further contends that the instruction conflicted with Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-206 (e) (Repl. 1997), which provides for certain evidence showing mistake of law.”
Kemp v. State, 919 S.W.2d 943 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 8דSource: Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-206. While the trial court did instruct the jury as to self-defense, appellant asserts that his federal and state due process rights were violated as a result of the trial court's refusal to give his proffered "imperfect self-defense" instruction.”
Kemp v. State, 74 S.W.3d 224 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 2ד§ 5-2-614 and “mistaken belief of fact,” based on Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-206 (d) (Repl. 1997).”
Commonwealth v. Kratsas, 764 A.2d 20 (Pa. 2001). “, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-206(c) (1999); Haw.Rev.”
State v. Cote, 945 A.2d 412 (Conn. 2008). “We also note that, although several other jurisdictions have similar provisions; see Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-206 (c) (2006); Colo.”
Walker v. Commonwealth, 127 S.W.3d 596 (Ky. 2004). “, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-206(c) (1975); Haw.Rev.”
Ross v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 234 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2ד3d 445, 458 (2003), and Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-206(b) (Repl. 2013); however, Ross maintains that is precisely what trial counsel attempted to argue in voir dire and presumably had selected as a trial strategy.”
Wicker v. Goodwin, 813 F. Supp. 676 (E.D. Ark. 1992). · cites it 2דArk.Code Ann. § 5-2-206(c)(3) in pertinent part states: It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged to constitute the offense believing that the conduct did not, as a matter of law, constitute the offense, if he acted in reasonable…”
Mullins v. State, 198 S.W.3d 504 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 5דArk. Code Ann. § 5-2-206 (c) states: It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged to constitute the offense believing that the conduct did not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense, if he acted in reasonable rebanee upon an…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-206(a) — 1 case
Jester v. State, 239 S.W.3d 484 (Ark. 2006). “Mistake of fact is an affirmative defense under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-206 . The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was mistaken in his belief of fact that he acted with legal justification to harvest timber on the property in question.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-206(b) — 1 case
Ross v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 234 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). “3d 445, 458 (2003), and Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-206(b) (Repl. 2013); however, Ross maintains that is precisely what trial counsel attempted to argue in voir dire and presumably had selected as a trial strategy.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-206(c) — 3 cases
Jester v. State, 239 S.W.3d 484 (Ark. 2006). “Mistake of fact is an affirmative defense under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-206 . The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was mistaken in his belief of fact that he acted with legal justification to harvest timber on the property in question.”
Commonwealth v. Kratsas, 764 A.2d 20 (Pa. 2001). “, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-206(c) (1999); Haw.Rev.”
Walker v. Commonwealth, 127 S.W.3d 596 (Ky. 2004). “, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-206(c) (1975); Haw.Rev.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-206(c)(3) — 1 case
Wicker v. Goodwin, 813 F. Supp. 676 (E.D. Ark. 1992). “Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-206(c)(3) in pertinent part states: It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged to constitute the offense believing that the conduct did not, as a matter of law, constitute the offense, if he acted in reasonable…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-206(d) — 1 case
Kemp v. State, 919 S.W.2d 943 (Ark. 1996). “Source: Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-206. While the trial court did instruct the jury as to self-defense, appellant asserts that his federal and state due process rights were violated as a result of the trial court's refusal to give his proffered "imperfect self-defense" instruction.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-206(e) — 1 case
Owens v. State, 128 S.W.3d 445 (Ark. 2003). “He further contends that the instruction conflicted with Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-206 (e) (Repl. 1997), which provides for certain evidence showing mistake of law.”
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.