Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-6 (2026)

Effect of ignorance or mistake

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A person shall not be relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief of fact, unless: (1) Such factual mistake negates the 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 factual mistake constitutes a defense or exemption; or (3) such factual mistake is of a kind that supports a defense of justification.

(b) A person shall not be relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief that it does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense, unless (1) the law provides that the state of mind established by such mistaken belief constitutes a defense, or unless (2) such mistaken belief is founded upon an official statement of law contained in a statute or other enactment, an administrative order or grant of permission, a judicial decision of a state or federal court, or an interpretation of the statute or law relating to the offense, officially made or issued by a public servant, agency or body legally charged or empowered with the responsibility or privilege of administering, enforcing or interpreting such statute or law.

(1969, P.A. 828, S. 6.)

Defendant entitled as matter of law to a theory of defense instruction when evidence of defense under section is placed before jury. 178 C. 704. Cited. 199 C. 537; 204 C. 240; 209 C. 75.

Cited. 17 CA 326.

Subsec. (a):

Cited. 198 C. 454; 210 C. 132. When mistake of fact defense arises and when jury instruction re mistake of fact is required. 246 C. 268.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case: State v. Silveira, 503 A.2d 599 (Conn. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Silveira, 503 A.2d 599 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 20× “I We first address the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred by refusing his request to charge the jury on the defense of mistake of fact under General Statutes § 53a-6 (a) (1) and (3).”

State v. Cote, 945 A.2d 412 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 9× “He asserts that the state building code authorizes building inspectors to require compliance with laws related to building construction or building renovation, which would encompass sandblasting and paint removal.”

State v. George B., 785 A.2d 573 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 5× “General Statutes § 53a-6. 9 Thus, the jury instruction the trial court gave *801 pertaining to sexual assault in the third degree, viewed as a whole, adequately informed the jury of the elements of the crime.”

State v. Smith, 554 A.2d 713 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 6× “A corresponding provision of our own penal code, General Statutes § 53a-6 (a), 1 allows the defense that a person has engaged in conduct otherwise criminal under a mistaken belief of fact where “[s]uch factual mistake negates the mental state required for the commission of an…”

Traylor v. State, 43 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Code § 35-41-3-7 (1999); Iowa Code § 701.6 (1999); Kan.Stat. § 21-3203(1) (1999); Ky.”

State v. Rothenberg, 487 A.2d 545 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 53a-6 (a) (1). Because any mistake on the defendant’s part was dispelled before the defendant performed the criminal acts; see text, pp.”

State v. Rouleau, 528 A.2d 343 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 2× “The trial court’s instructions included the following: “Now, we also have a statute that provides that in any prosecution for an offense, it shall be a defense that the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was coerced by the use of threatened imminent use of…”

State v. Fiocchi, 553 A.2d 181 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989). · cites it 4× “In particular, he objects to the court’s charge defining what constitutes an official statement pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-6 (b). 7 *331 There was testimony presented at trial that when the defendant’s wife complained to Officer Jack Landon of the Glastonbury police…”

State v. Beltran, 717 A.2d 168 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 2× “The defense of mistake of fact is available under General Statutes § 53a-6 (a), which provides in relevant part: “A person shall not be relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief of fact, unless: (1) Such factual mistake…”

State v. Smith, 644 A.2d 923 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “The trial court found that the defendant did not satisfy the fourth condition of Whistnant because proof of the element of permanency, which distinguishes assault in the first degree under General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (2), and the lesser included offense of assault in the third…”

State v. Woods, 740 A.2d 371 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 2× “9 “The defense of mistake of fact is available under General Statutes § 53a-6 (a), which provides in relevant part: ‘A person shall not be relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief of fact, unless: (1) Such factual…”

State v. Nugent, 508 A.2d 728 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 2× “*539 The defendant claims on appeal that the trial court erred: (1) by failing to charge the jury on the defense of mistake of law under General Statutes § 53a-6; 2 (2) by charging the jury that as a matter of law the restraint of the victim by the defendant was unlawful; and…”

Show all 23 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-6(a)(1) — 1 case

Traylor v. State, 43 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App. 2001). “Code § 35-41-3-7 (1999); Iowa Code § 701.6 (1999); Kan.Stat. § 21-3203(1) (1999); Ky.”

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.