Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 36 (2026)

Ignorance or mistake

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Evidence of ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a required culpable state of mind.

[PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW).]

2. Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense only if the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.

[PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW).]

3. Although ignorance or mistake would otherwise afford a defense to the crime charged, the defense is not available if the defendant would be guilty of another crime had the situation been as the defendant supposed.

[PL 2007, c. 173, §9 (AMD).]

4. It is an affirmative defense if the defendant engages in conduct that the defendant believes does not legally constitute a crime if:

A. The statute violated is not known to the defendant and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged; or [PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW).]

B. The defendant acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in:

(1) A statute, ordinance or other enactment;

(2) A final judicial decision, opinion or judgment;

(3) An administrative order or grant of permission; or

(4) An official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the statute defining the crime. This subsection does not impose any duty to make any such official interpretation. [PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW).]

[PL 2007, c. 173, §10 (AMD).]

5. A mistaken belief that facts exist which would constitute an affirmative defense is not an affirmative defense, except as otherwise expressly provided.

[PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW). PL 2007, c. 173, §§9, 10 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1982–2016 · leading case: State v. LaVallee-Davidson, 26 A.3d 828 (Me. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. LaVallee-Davidson, 26 A.3d 828 (Me. 2011). · cites it 14× “See 17-A M.R.S. § 36; 8 see also 17-A M.R.S. 203(1)(A).”

State v. Dansinger, 521 A.2d 685 (Me. 1987). · cites it 2× “[6] These facts also lead us to reject the Defendants defense based on 17-A M.R.S.A. § 36 "Ignorance or mistake.”

State v. Collin, 1999 ME 187 (Me. 1999). · cites it 3× “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 36 (1983). 5 When a defendant raises a defense which has been *1078 supported by competent evidence, the trial court must instruct the jury that the State needs to disprove the defense to convict.”

Gen. v. State, 789 A.2d 102 (Md. 2002). “070 (Michie 1999); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A § 36 (West 1983); Tex.”

State of Maine v. Thomas P. Woodard, 2013 ME 36 (Me. 2013). “See 17-A M.R.S. §§ 36(1)(A), 354(1)(A), (2)(A).”

State v. Cote, 945 A.2d 412 (Conn. 2008). “070 (3) (LexisNexis 1999); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 36 (4) (2006); N.”

State v. Poole, 568 A.2d 830 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “” Although under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 36 (1983) mistake of fact can in some cases be a defense to criminal liability, see State v.”

Walker v. Commonwealth, 127 S.W.3d 596 (Ky. 2004). “See also, e.g., Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-206(c) (1975); Haw.”

State v. Webster, 2008 ME 119 (Me. 2008). “” 17-A M.R.S. § 36(1) (2007). In the instant case, Webster’s belief that Bringard was thirteen years old was a mistake of fact, but one that indicated his culpable state of mind rather than his innocent state of mind.”

State v. Farnsworth, 447 A.2d 1216 (Me. 1982). “Section 52(4)(B) has since been repealed and replaced by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 36(4)(B) (Supp. 1981). The former section 52(4)(B) provided, in part, as follows: 4.”

State of Maine v. Harvey Austin Jr., 2016 ME 14 (Me. 2016). “On appeal, Austin has abandoned his assertion that the stand was unfinished.”

State v. Keefe, 553 A.2d 1253 (Me. 1989). “Keefe raises the affirmative defense under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 36(4)(B)(3) (1983) that he was acting “in reasonable reliance upon an official statement .”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 36(1) — 2 cases

State v. LaVallee-Davidson, 26 A.3d 828 (Me. 2011). “See 17-A M.R.S. § 36; 8 see also 17-A M.R.S. 203(1)(A).”

State v. Webster, 2008 ME 119 (Me. 2008). “” 17-A M.R.S. § 36(1) (2007). In the instant case, Webster’s belief that Bringard was thirteen years old was a mistake of fact, but one that indicated his culpable state of mind rather than his innocent state of mind.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 36(1)(A) — 1 case

State of Maine v. Thomas P. Woodard, 2013 ME 36 (Me. 2013). “See 17-A M.R.S. §§ 36(1)(A), 354(1)(A), (2)(A).”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 36(2) — 1 case

State v. LaVallee-Davidson, 26 A.3d 828 (Me. 2011). “See 17-A M.R.S. § 36; 8 see also 17-A M.R.S. 203(1)(A).”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 36(4) — 1 case

State v. LaVallee-Davidson, 26 A.3d 828 (Me. 2011). “See 17-A M.R.S. § 36; 8 see also 17-A M.R.S. 203(1)(A).”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 36(4)(B) — 1 case

State v. Farnsworth, 447 A.2d 1216 (Me. 1982). “Section 52(4)(B) has since been repealed and replaced by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 36(4)(B) (Supp. 1981). The former section 52(4)(B) provided, in part, as follows: 4.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 36(4)(B)(3) — 1 case

State v. Keefe, 553 A.2d 1253 (Me. 1989). “Keefe raises the affirmative defense under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 36(4)(B)(3) (1983) that he was acting “in reasonable reliance upon an official statement .”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 36(4)(B)(4) — 1 case

State of Maine v. Harvey Austin Jr., 2016 ME 14 (Me. 2016). “On appeal, Austin has abandoned his assertion that the stand was unfinished.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 36(5) — 1 case

State v. Poole, 568 A.2d 830 (Me. 1990). “” Although under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 36 (1983) mistake of fact can in some cases be a defense to criminal liability, see State v.”

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.