Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-502 (2026)
Ignorance or mistake of fact
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Except in prosecutions for violations of §§ 39-13-504(a)(4) and 39-13-522, ignorance or mistake of fact is a defense to prosecution if the ignorance or mistake negates the culpable mental state of the charged offense.
- (b) Although a person's ignorance or mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, the person may be convicted of the offense for which the person would be guilty if the fact were as the person believed.
- (c) It is not a defense to prosecution for a violation of § 39-13-309, § 39-13-514, or § 39-13-529(a), (b)(1), or (b)(2) that the person charged was ignorant or mistaken as to the age of a minor.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1115, s 12, eff. 7/1/2022.
Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 337, s 1, eff. 7/1/2013.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1995, ch. 495, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: State v. McPherson, 882 S.W.2d 365 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
State v. McPherson, 882 S.W.2d 365 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “I think it’s the law, and that sounds fine. In this Court the appellant contends that the trial court erroneously charged the jury because the trial court (a) failed to adequately define the “mistake” elements of Tenn.”
State v. Jones, 889 S.W.2d 225 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-502 . The state’s response is that lack of knowledge of the victim’s age is not a defense because it does not negate the requisite intent.”
United States v. Wilson, 66 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2008). “§ 3102 (West 2007); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-502 (West 2007); Wash.”
Traylor v. State, 43 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App. 2001). “Codified Laws § 22-3-1(3) (1999); Tenn.Code § 39-11-502(a) (1999); Utah Code § 76-2-304(1) (1999); Wis.”
State v. Ballinger, 93 S.W.3d 881 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-502. The state contends that mistake of fact is no defense to statutory rape, because the statutory rape statute requires no culpable mental state.”
State v. Ealey, 959 S.W.2d 605 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “T.C.A. § 39-11-502(b). 6 Thus, if the defendant in this case had believed G.”
State v. Yanez, 716 A.2d 759 (R.I. 1998). “030 (Michie 1990); Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-502 (Michie 1997); see also State v.”
Fleming, Mark Alexander, 455 S.W.3d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “§ 3102 (age 14); Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-11-502(a), 39-13-504(a)(4), 39-13-522(a) (age 13); W.”
State v. Parker, 887 S.W.2d 825 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-502 . Because he did not know the victim’s true age, he contends that he did not have the requisite mental state to *827 commit aggravated rape or aggravated sexual battery.”
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Logan Lawson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “”4 Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-502(a), “ignorance or mistake of fact is a defense to prosecution if the ignorance or mistake negates the culpable mental state of the charged offense.”
State of Tennessee v. Randy Scott Bible (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024). “” On appeal, the Defendant does not dispute any element of this offense other than the element that he acted “knowingly” with regard to the fact that the victim was less than eighteen years of age.”
Clarence Nesbit v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-502 (a) (2010). Ignorance or mistake of fact is a “narrow defense.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-502(a) — 10 cases
Traylor v. State, 43 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App. 2001). “Codified Laws § 22-3-1(3) (1999); Tenn.Code § 39-11-502(a) (1999); Utah Code § 76-2-304(1) (1999); Wis.”
Fleming, Mark Alexander, 455 S.W.3d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “§ 3102 (age 14); Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-11-502(a), 39-13-504(a)(4), 39-13-522(a) (age 13); W.”
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Logan Lawson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019). “”4 Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-502(a), “ignorance or mistake of fact is a defense to prosecution if the ignorance or mistake negates the culpable mental state of the charged offense.”
State of Tennessee v. Eugenio Gomez Ruiz (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Keeton (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-502(b) — 1 case
State v. Ealey, 959 S.W.2d 605 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). “T.C.A. § 39-11-502(b). 6 Thus, if the defendant in this case had believed G.”
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.