Tex. Codes » Penal Code · TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY · CHAPTER 8. GENERAL DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Texas Codes

Tex. Penal Code § 8.03 (2026)

Mistake Of Law

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 8.03. MISTAKE OF LAW. (a) It is no defense to prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has taken effect.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor reasonably believed the conduct charged did not constitute a crime and that he acted in reasonable reliance upon:

(1) an official statement of the law contained in a written order or grant of permission by an administrative agency charged by law with responsibility for interpreting the law in question; or

(2) a written interpretation of the law contained in an opinion of a court of record or made by a public official charged by law with responsibility for interpreting the law in question.

(c) Although an actor's mistake of law may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of a lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the law were as he believed.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: James Alan Jenkins v. State, 468 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
James Alan Jenkins v. State, 468 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 14× “See Tex. Penal Code § 8.03. Jenkins’s entire defense was based on his argument that he reasonably believed he was eligible to vote in the May 8, 2010 RUD election based on his reasonable reliance on the election law authorities, and he presented evidence supporting his defensive…”
Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. 2000). · cites it 4× “See Tex. PEN.CODE § 8.03(a) ("It is no defense to prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has taken effect.”
Johnson, Manley Dewayne, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “See Tex. Penal Code § 8.03(a) (stating the general rule that ”[i]t is no defense to prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has taken effect.”
State v. Villarreal, David, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “, Tex. Penal Code § 8.03(a) (“It is no defense to prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has taken effect.”
United States v. Daniel Davis, 690 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “2d 615 (1994); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 8.03 (a) (“It is no defense to- prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has taken effect.”
Hefner v. State, 735 S.W.2d 608 (Tex. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “The Practice Commentary following Texas Penal Code section 8.03 gives examples *626 of situations in which the mistake of law defense could be properly invoked: Under the narrow exception of Subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2), a cafe owner prosecuted for selling beer for off-premises…”
Tovar v. State, 978 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “TEX. PEN.CODE ANN. § 8.03 (Vernon 1994). The conduct delineated § 551.”
Mark Ken Tafel v. State, 524 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 8.03 (b) (West 2011); Green v.”
Ingram v. State, 261 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. App. 2008). “See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 8.03 (Vernon 2003) (governing mistakes of law).”
Delay v. State, 465 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “” Tex. Penal Code § 8.03(a). However, as we read Section 34.”
King v. State, 174 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App. 2005). “See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 8.02 (Vernon 2003). The State counters that ignorance of the law is no defense under section 8.”
Delay, Thomas Dale, 443 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “” Tex. Penal Code § 8.03(a). However, as we read Section 34.”
Show all 78 citing cases →
— Tex. Penal Code § 8.03(a) — 21 cases
Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. 2000). “See Tex. PEN.CODE § 8.03(a) ("It is no defense to prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has taken effect.”
Johnson, Manley Dewayne, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “See Tex. Penal Code § 8.03(a) (stating the general rule that ”[i]t is no defense to prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has taken effect.”
State v. Villarreal, David, 475 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “, Tex. Penal Code § 8.03(a) (“It is no defense to prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has taken effect.”
Delay v. State, 465 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “” Tex. Penal Code § 8.03(a). However, as we read Section 34.”
James Alan Jenkins v. State, 468 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. App. 2015). “See Tex. Penal Code § 8.03. Jenkins’s entire defense was based on his argument that he reasonably believed he was eligible to vote in the May 8, 2010 RUD election based on his reasonable reliance on the election law authorities, and he presented evidence supporting his defensive…”
— Tex. Penal Code § 8.03(b) — 19 cases
James Alan Jenkins v. State, 468 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. App. 2015). “See Tex. Penal Code § 8.03. Jenkins’s entire defense was based on his argument that he reasonably believed he was eligible to vote in the May 8, 2010 RUD election based on his reasonable reliance on the election law authorities, and he presented evidence supporting his defensive…”
Mark Ken Tafel v. State, 524 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App. 2016). “See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 8.03 (b) (West 2011); Green v.”
Roberts v. State, 319 S.W.3d 37 (Tex. App. 2010).
Sparkman v. State, 968 S.W.2d 373 (Tex. App. 1997).
Knorpp v. State, 645 S.W.2d 892 (Tex. App. 1983).
— Tex. Penal Code § 8.03(b)(1) — 1 case
Lugo v. State, 923 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. App. 1995).
— Tex. Penal Code § 8.03(b)(2) — 4 cases
State v. John D. Deloach (Tex. App. 2014).
Thomas Joseph Stauder II v. State (Tex. App. 2011).
William Earl Durham v. State (Tex. App. 2013).
Jenkins, James Alan (Tex. 2015).
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.