Pa. Cons. Stat. » 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. (CRIMES AND OFFENSES) / Chapter 3
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 304 (2026)

 Ignorance or mistake.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 304.  Ignorance or mistake.

Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact, for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse, is a defense if:

(1)  the ignorance or mistake negatives the intent, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense; or

(2)  the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Kratsas, 764 A.2d 20 (Pa. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Kratsas, 764 A.2d 20 (Pa. 2001). · cites it 3× “In this regard, the legislative admonition that, “[g]enerally speaking, ignorance or mistake of law is no defense,” 18 Pa.C.S. § 304 (official comment), is, again, highly relevant.”
Commonwealth, Aplt v. Pelzer, K., 104 A.3d 267 (Pa. 2014). · cites it 2× “Brief of Appellee Pelzer at 59 , citing 18 Pa.C.S. §304 (defense of ignorance or mistake of fact).”
Commonwealth v. Cline, 177 A.3d 922 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 304, Official Comment- (“Generally speaking, ignorance or mistake of law is no defense.”
Commonwealth v. Namack, 663 A.2d 191 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “Even if, as the Commonwealth asserts, this belief was in error because no prescriptive easement could be created on unen *15 closed woodland, 1 the evidence established no more than a good faith mistake on appellant’s part.”
Commonwealth v. Scott, 176 A.3d 283 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 304, Official Comment ("Generally speaking, ignorance or mistake of law is no defense.”
Commonwealth v. Pond, 846 A.2d 699 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004). “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 304(1). Thus, if violation of the Megan’s Law II verification provisions include a mens rea element, then the accused is entitled to assert the defense of mistake.”
Commonwealth v. Berrigan, 535 A.2d 91 (Pa. 1987). · cites it 2× “See 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 304 (Purdon 1983).”
Commonwealth v. Jones, 363 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 304 (ignorance or mistake) 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Cosentino, 850 A.2d 58 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 304 (official comment). Although this Court would appear to have substantially endorsed a reliance defense in [the context of] overturning a contempt conviction[,] criminal contempt is a unique area of the law, and it is thus questionable how broadly the Court's…”
Commonwealth v. Jaggers, 903 A.2d 33 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). “See 18 Pa.C.S. § 304, official comment (“Generally speaking, ignorance or mistake of law is no defense”).”
Commonwealth v. Liebenow, 997 N.E.2d 109 (Mass. App. Ct. 2013). “035 (1) (2011) (providing defense if defendant “reasonably believed that [he] was entitled to the property involved” or if he “was unaware that the property was that of another”); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 304 (West Supp.”
Commonwealth v. Lewis, 15 Pa. D. & C.5th 233 (2010). · cites it 2× “” 18 Pa.C.S. §304(b)(2)(i). . For other decisions that provide analogous support for this decision, see Stevenson, supra at 354-55, 744 A.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 304(1) — 4 cases
Commonwealth v. Pond, 846 A.2d 699 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004). “” 18 Pa.C.S. § 304(1). Thus, if violation of the Megan’s Law II verification provisions include a mens rea element, then the accused is entitled to assert the defense of mistake.”
Com. v. Carney, D. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).
Com. v. Hairston, K. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
Com. v. Love, M. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 304(b)(2)(i) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Lewis, 15 Pa. D. & C.5th 233 (2010). “” 18 Pa.C.S. §304(b)(2)(i). . For other decisions that provide analogous support for this decision, see Stevenson, supra at 354-55, 744 A.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 304(g) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Lewis, 15 Pa. D. & C.5th 233 (2010). “” 18 Pa.C.S. §304(b)(2)(i). . For other decisions that provide analogous support for this decision, see Stevenson, supra at 354-55, 744 A.”
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.