Chapter 8
General Defenses
8.22 Instruction—Mistake of Fact
[Insert instructions for underlying offense.]
If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the [number] elements listed above, you must next consider whether the defendant is not guilty because of the defense of mistake of fact.
Mistake of Fact
It is a defense to the offense of [offense] that the person through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact and the mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense.
Burden of Proof
The defendant is not required to prove that he made a mistake of fact. Rather, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not make a mistake of fact constituting a defense.
Definition
Reasonable Belief
“Reasonable belief” means a belief that an ordinary and prudent person would have held in the same circumstances as the defendant.
Application of Law to Facts
To decide the issue of mistake of fact, you must determine whether the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that either—
- the defendant did not believe [insert mistake claimed by defendant, e.g., he had effective consent from someone he reasonably believed to be the owner of the vehicle]; or
- the defendant’s belief that [insert mistake claimed by defendant, e.g., he had effective consent from someone he reasonably believed to be the owner of the vehicle] was not reasonable.
You must all agree that the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above. You need not agree on which of these elements the state has proved.
If you find that the state has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “not guilty.”
If you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of the offense of [insert specific offense], and you all agree the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, either element 1 or 2 listed above, you must find the defendant “guilty.”
[Insert any other instructions raised by the evidence. Then continue with the verdict form found in CPJC 2.1, the general charge.]
Comment
The defense of mistake of fact is provided for in Tex. Penal Code § 8.02(a). The definition of “reasonable belief” is based on Tex. Penal Code § 1.07(a)(42).
Identifying Challenged Culpable Mental State. A jury instruction on mistake of fact must apply the law to the facts of the case. Beggs v. State, 597 S.W.2d 375, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (“The trial court’s refusal to give a charge that applied the law of mistake of fact to the very facts of the case, over the appellant’s objection and in the face of a properly requested charge, was reversible error.”).
This apparently means the instruction must identify the claimed mistake of fact and make clear that this claimed mistaken belief is inconsistent with the culpable mental state required.
In Beggs, the prosecution was for intentionally or knowingly causing serious bodily injury to a child, which required the defendant to at least know that her conduct (putting the child in a bath) was reasonably certain to cause serious bodily injury. She relied on evidence that she mistakenly believed the water was of normal bathwater temperature and thus not as hot as would cause serious bodily injury. The essence of the court of criminal appeals’ holding was that the jury instructions must identify for the jury the claimed mistake—that the water was not as hot as would cause serious bodily injury—and must make clear that this mistaken belief could not logically coexist with the required culpable mental state—actual awareness that putting the child in the bathwater was reasonably certain to cause serious bodily injury.
The Committee considered suggesting that the instruction include an additional paragraph that would identify the culpable mental state challenged by the mistake-of-fact evidence and explicitly tell the jury that the claimed mistake—if held by the defendant—was logically inconsistent with that required culpable mental state.
As applied to a possible mistake-of-fact defense in a prosecution for unauthorized use of a vehicle, for example, such a paragraph might read as follows:
The offense of unauthorized use of a vehicle requires proof that the defendant knew he did not have the effective consent of the owner to the operation of the vehicle. This would be negated by credible evidence that the defendant reasonably believed he had effective consent from someone he reasonably believed to be the owner of the vehicle.
A majority of the Committee, however, declined to recommend that instructions include such a paragraph. They believed it would generally be unnecessary, as jurors would already be aware of this information. Further, they concluded it would too often generate controversy regarding the matters to be included and the detail and specificity with which they should be included.