Ignorance and Mistake of Law

Question 1

Ignorance of the law is…

Answer 1

No excuse, everyone presumed to know law

Question 2

Justification for ignorance of law never being exculaptory

Answer 2

1. Ignorance as to existence, scope or meaning (i.e. misunderstanding) of criminal law is not a defense
2. Would destroy the authoritative source of law, destroy the educative function of law, the source/meaning of criminal law would be everyone’s own
3. Would incentivize people not to know the law

Question 3

State v. Fox

Answer 3

1. Statute: 1) possess 2) controlled substance 3) without valid prescription
2. He possessed ephedrine without valid prescription, didn’t know it’s controlled = mistake of criminal law → Ignorance of the law is not an excuse
3. Dissent worried about people who possess small amounts, get arrested (asthmatic traveler)

Question 4

Hopkins

Answer 4

1. Specialized in marriages, legislature made it unlawful to make signs to solicit performing marriages
2. Consulted an attorney about signs to see if he could put them up, attorney said it would be ok, indicted for violating the sign rule
3. Court said cannot be excused because of misconstrued or misapplied law

Question 5

Striggles – strong argument for exception to mistake of law defense

Answer 5

1. Municipal court held that particular machine was not a gambling device, company then went to Striggles who owned a restaurant and got him to buy the machine
2. SC then held that it was a gambling device and Striggles was convicted for allowing gambling on his premises

Question 6

People v. Marrero – personal misunderstanding

Answer 6

1. Fed. corrections officer found in possession of gun in social club in NYC, charged with illegal handgun possession
2. Illegal handgun possession statute had exception for “peace officers” including prison guards. He thought he was covered by exception.
3. On appeal, court said intent of statute was provide a defense only or persons in possession of gun while on duty authorized by fed. law, regulation, or order.
4. D argued that his misunderstanding of the statutory definition should excuse him. Judge refused to allow instruction. Was found guilty.
5. Personal misunderstanding of statute does not excuse from criminal liability

Question 7

Lambert – defense of ignorance of law exception

Answer 7

1. Statute: 1. Convicted felon 2. Be or remain 3. In LA 4. For more than 5 days 5. Without registering with police
2. She was unaware of registration requirement
3. SCOTUS said actual knowledge was necessary before conviction
4. Nothing in the circumstances that would alert her to this crime, based on an omission, once given an opportunity didn’t get a chance to fix it
5. Other mitigating factors likely contributing to SCOTUS’ decisions were that her “acts” were not a moral wrong and the statute criminalized a state of being.

Question 8

Mistake of Law and MPC

Answer 8

1. A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense if
   • Lack of notice: Statute defining offense is not known and has not been published or made available prior to conduct (Lambert)
   • He acts in reasonable reliance on official statement of law later determined to be erroneous contained in (1) a statute or other enactment, (2) a judicial decision opinion or judgment (3) an administrative order or grant of permission (4) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration or enforcement

Question 9

Mistake of non-governing law under common law and MPC

Answer 9

1. Claiming he was mistaken about one of the material elements of the crime (factual aspects and legal aspects of the elements)
2. Specific intent – is a defense if it negates specific intent (ex: mistake of ownership of property was a defense to larceny)
3. General intent – often not a defense
4. MPC treats this like mistake of fact, let it be a defense if negates mens rea

Question 10

Long v. State

Answer 10

1. Crime: 1) person, 2) with lawful spouse, 3) who is alive, 4) contracts another marriage
2. Long tries to get divorced, then consults and attorney 3 times to be sure he could remarry, who assured him every time that his divorce was valid and that he could remarry. Turns out he wasn’t legally divorced. Gets remarried. Prosecuted for bigamy.
3. The lawful spouse element is both a factual term and a legal term (i.e. non-governing law element)
4. Under common law, if non-governing law element is specific intent, then honest mistake of non-governing law is exculpatory. If general intent must be honest and reasonable mistake of non-governing law to be exculpatory.
5. “Lawful spouse” element was general intent, so honest mistake was not exculpatory.