Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-7 (2026)
Mistake of fact
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 7. It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact, if the mistake negates the culpability required for commission of the offense.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.12.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases, 1982–2020 · leading case: Saunders v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1117 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Saunders v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1117 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “2 Pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-41-3-7, Saunders filed a Notice of Mistake of Fact Defense.”
Nolan v. State, 863 N.E.2d 398 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “See I.C. § 35-41-3-7. Here, the facts support the jury’s finding that K.”
Wrinkles v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1156 (Ind. 1997). “) Defendant argues that this instruction correctly states the law because it is based on Ind.Code § 35-41-3-7 (1993); that no other instruction given by the trial court covered the defense of mistake of fact; and that evidence in the record exists to support giving the…”
Potter v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 1997). “I.C. § 35-41-3-7 (1986). 5 . ' Potter argues that his double jeopardy rights have been violated under-the Indiana Constitution.”
Traylor v. State, 43 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App. 2001). “5/4-8(a) (1999); Ind.Code § 35-41-3-7 (1999); Iowa Code § 701.”
Christopher Cowans v. State of Indiana, 53 N.E.3d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “” Ind.Code § 35-41-3-7. A person invoking this defense must satisfy three elements: 1) the mistake was honest and reasonable; 2) the mistake was about a matter of fact; and 3) the mistake negates the culpability required to commit the crime.”
LaRose v. State, 820 N.E.2d 727 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “See Ind.Code § 35-41-3-7 (1998). 6 . Hess also attaches significance to the fact that Hess' statement was not directed at any particular individual.”
Ringham v. State, 768 N.E.2d 893 (Ind. 2002). “Without objection from Ringham, the trial court modified the instruction to mirror Indiana Code section 35-41-3-7, and instructed the jury that "lt is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact if the mistake…”
William Chavers v. State of Indiana, 991 N.E.2d 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “codified as a defense to the charge of invasion of privacy at Indiana Code section 35-41-3-7, which states in relevant part, “It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact, if the mistake negates the…”
Michael G. Tyson v. Clarence Trigg, Superintendent of the Indiana Youth Ctr. & Attorney Gen. of the State of Indiana, 50 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 1995). “Ind.Code § 35-41-3-7; Boyd v. State, 564 N.”
Stoner v. State, 442 N.E.2d 983 (Ind. 1982). “Indiana Code § 35-41-3-7 provides: “It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact if the mistake negates the culpability required for commission of the offense.”
Lechner v. State, 715 N.E.2d 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Ind.Code § 35-41-3-7 sets forth a generally-applicable mistake of fact defense: “[i]t is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact, if the mistake negates the culpability required for commission of the 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.