FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 252
Go to Volume 11 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 252 Table of Contents

252.9 Mistake Of Law

    252.9.1 Mistake Of Law: Negation Of A Mental Element Of The Charge
    252.9.2 Mistake Of Law As To Legal Duty: Distinction Between Tax And Nontax Cases
    252.9.3 Mistake Of Law: Applicability To “Regulatory Statutes”
    252.9.4 Ignorance Of The Law Due To Unavailable Law

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 252

RATIONALE: The defendant should not be held criminally liable if a mistake of law negated a state of mind required by the criminal statute.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: If criminal intent is required by an offense definition and cannot be proven because of the defendant’s ignorance or mistake, then the defendant cannot be convicted of the offense. (Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (West, 1984) § 62(c) pp. 262-63.)

    For example, under California law, ignorance or mistake of law can negate the existence of specific intent so long as the mistake is made honestly and in good faith. (See U.S. v. Gunn (W.D.Ark. 1950) 97 FSupp 476, 480; Kratz v. Kratz (E.D.Pa. 1977) 477 FSupp 463, 480; U.S. v. Buehler (E.D.Wash. 1992) 793 FSupp 971, 975; People v. Vineberg (CA 1981) 125 CA3d 127, 137 [177 CR 819]; People v. Smith (CA 1966) 63 C2d 779, 793 [48 CR 382]; People v. Goodin (CA 1902) 136 C 455, 458-59 [69 P 85]; Long v. State (DE 1949) 65 A2d 489, 498; People v. Marrero (NY 1987) 507 NE2d 1068, 1072 [dicta that mistake of law which negates a specific intent required for the offense is a defense]; State v. Bendoly (SC 1979) 254 SE2d 287 [good faith belief in legality of conduct].)

    People v. Barrett DEPUBLISHED (CA 1997) 52 CA4th 1495 [61 CR2d 482] explained that there are three situations in which mistake of law may be a defense to a charged crime: (1) if the statute provides that a specified mistake of law affords a defense, (2) if an express element of the offense is a state of mind which the mistake of law negates, or (3) if the mistake of law negates the existence of an implied element of general mens rea.

    For example, if the defendant mistakenly believed he had a valid lease to a building he entered his mistake may be viewed as a mistake of law.  (Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (West, 1984) § 62(d) pp. 264-65.)  However, such a "mistake of law" should still be a valid defense to a charge of burglary.  (Ibid.)

    Similarly, if the mistake relates to the legal effect of a wedding ceremony it might be called a mistake of law, meaning a mistake as to the civil law governing marriage. (Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (West, 1984) § 62(e) p. 265.)  However, such a mistake may be considered as a defense. (Ibid.)

    In sum, a mistake of law may be a defense to crimes which require a culpable mental state such as the specific intent to commit a criminal act. (Wharton’s Criminal Law (West, 15th Ed. 1993) § 79, pp. 568-69.)

    Of course, the courts reach a different result where the mistake is a mistake as to the law defining the offense. (Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (West, 1984) § 62(c) p. 262, fn. 41; see also FORECITE National™ 252.9.2 [Mistake Of Law As To Legal Duty: Distinction Between Tax And Nontax Cases].)

OPINION AVAILABLE: Click here. [Opinion Bank # O-306].

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.1].

    The defendant's honest but mistaken belief that [his] [her] conduct did not violate the law negates the intent necessary to convict [him] [her] of __________. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the necessary intent was not negated by the defendant's honest but mistaken belief.

    If you have a reasonable doubt whether the prosecution has met this burden you must find that the necessary intent was not proven and find the defendant not guilty.

[Source: FORECITE National™.]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 252

PRACTICE NOTE: The federal courts distinguish between tax and non tax cases in proscribing whether a mistake of law must be reasonable. In tax cases, according to Cheek v. U.S. (1991) 498 US 192, 203-04 [111 SCt 604; 112 LEd2d 617], even reckless ignorance of the legal duty to file a tax return may be a defense. However, in a nontax case involving acts which were not "inevitably nefarious", it has been held that the defendant must have acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful. (See Bryan v. U.S. (98) 524 US 184, 193 [141 LEd2d 197; 118 SCt 1939] [possession of unregistered machine guns statute requires proof that the defendant knew the weapon he possessed had the characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition of a machine gun]; see also Staples v. U.S (94) 511 US 600, 602 [128 LEd2d 608; 114 SCt 1793] [federal statute making it unlawful to possess an unregistered machine gun properly construed as requiring proof that defendant knew the characteristics of the firearm that he possessed met the statutory definition]; Ratzlaf v. United States (1994) 510 US 135, 137 [114 SCt 655; 126 LEd2d 655].)

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 252

PRACTICE NOTE: The scienter of mental state required to prove willfulness is more likely to require that the defendant was aware of the law and knew that the conduct was illegal, where the law does not outlaw conduct that is "obviously evil" but rather are "regulatory statutes." (See FORECITE National™ 45.1.1 [Requirement Of Criminal Intent Or Culpable Mental State: General Principles].)

    See also FORECITE National™ Chapter 54 [Strict Liability].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 252

    252.9.4    Ignorance Of The Law Due To Unavailable Law

PRACTICE NOTE: See Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (West, 1984) § 182 pp. 381-85.