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

VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257
Go to Volume 11 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 257 Table of Contents

257.4 Equitable Estoppel

    257.4.1 Equitable Estoppel Or Entrapment By Estoppel
    257.4.2 Reliance On Judicial Or Executive Orders As Defense Theory
    257.4.3 Entrapment By Estoppel Or Equitable Estoppel: Burden Of Proof
    257.4.4 Entrapment By Estoppel: Applicable To Strict Liability Crimes

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

VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257

RATIONALE: A person should be able to rely on statements made by a governmental official. To hold a person criminally liable who relied in good faith on such statements would violate fundamental legal doctrines of mistake of law and estoppel.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: "Mistaken reliance upon government officials can be a defense to be considered by the trier of fact. [Citations]." (People v. Sapse (CA 1980) 104 CA3d Supp 1, 13 [163 CR 920]; see also U.S. v. Lansing (9th Cir. 1970) 424 F2d 225, 227 [reasonable reliance upon misleading information furnished by the government is a defense to a criminal charge]; People v. Snyder (CA 1982) 32 C3d 590, 595 [186 CR 485].) The defense which is often called equitable estoppel or entrapment by estoppel was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Raley v. State of Ohio (1959) 360 US 423 [79 SCt 1257; 3 LEd2d 1344].

    "Briefly stated, entrapment by estoppel may apply when a government official incorrectly tells a defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes the official. In such a case, the government’s and the defendant’s reliance on that statement may operate to estop the government from convicting the defendant." (U.S. v. Reyes Vasquez (11th Cir. 1990) 905 F2d 1497, 1500.)

    "The defense of entrapment by estoppel is implicated where an agent of the government affirmatively misleads a party as to the state of the law and that party proceeds to act on the misrepresentation so that criminal prosecution of the actor implicates due process concerns under the 5th and 14th Amendments...." (U.S. v. Nichols (10th Cir. 1994) 21 F3d 1016, 1018; see also Lewis v. United States (1980) 445 US 55, 61 [100 SCt 915; 63 LEd2d 198]; U.S. v. Abcasis (2nd Cir. 1995) 45 F3d 39, 43-45; U.S. v. Tallmadge (9th Cir. 1987) 829 F2d 767, 773-75 [defendant advised by federally-licensed firearms dealer that firearm could be purchased despite defendant’s prior conviction]; U.S. v. Thompson (11th Cir. 1994) 25 F3d 1558, 1562-64 [equitable estoppel applicable to possession of firearm by convicted felon]; U.S. v. Billue (11th Cir. 1993) 994 F2d 1562, 1562-65.)

    "A typical formulation [from Model Penal Code § 2.04(3)(b)] provides that a belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based on such conduct when the defendant acts in reasonable reliance on an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in (1) a statute or other enactment; (2) a judicial decision, opinion, or judgment; (3) an administrative order or grant of permission; or (4) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense." (Miller v. Commonwealth (VA 1997) 492 SE2d 482, 485.)

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

RESEARCH NOTES:

Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (West, 1984) (1999 Pocket Part) § 181 pp. 386-94.

LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (West, 1986) § 5.1(e).

Criminal Law: "Official Statement" Mistake of Law Defense, 89 ALR 1026.

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.5.6 [Equitable Estoppel].

See 7th Circuit Federal Jury Instructions - Criminal 6.07.

See also 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 6.10.

    A defendant who acts in reliance on public authority does not act knowingly [or with the intent to (state intent requirement of statute, if any)], and should be found not guilty.

    A defendant acts under public authority if:

    (1)     that defendant is affirmatively told that his/her conduct would be lawful;

    (2)     the defendant is told this by an official of the [United States] government; [and]

    (3)     the defendant actually relies on what the official tells him/her in taking the action; [and,

    (4)     the defendant’s reliance on what he/she was told by the official is reasonable in light of the circumstances.]

    In considering whether a defendant actually relied on representations by an official that his/her conduct would lawful, you should consider all of the circumstances of their discussion, including the identity of the official, the point of law discussed, the nature of what the defendant told, and was told by, the official, and whether that reliance was reasonable.

[Source: 7TH CIRCUIT FEDERAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL 6.07 [Reliance On Public Authority] (1999).]

    If, in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of a public officer, defendant had a bona fide belief that the conduct charged in this prosecution was not unlawful, then you may not find [him] [her] guilty of the charged offense.

[Source: FORECITE National™.]

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

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257

PRACTICE NOTE: "One who reasonably relies on a court order is usually immune from prosecution for crimes committed pursuant to the order." (Cook and Hermann, Criminal Defense Checklist (West, 1999) § 4.03(4).)

See 7th Circuit Federal Jury Instructions - Criminal 6.07.

See also 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 6.10.

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

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257

PRACTICE NOTE: It has been suggested that, as to entrapment by estoppel or equitable estoppel the jury should not be instructed, as it must be in entrapment cases, that the government has the burden of proving the negative of the defense. (U.S. v. Austin (8th Cir. 1990) 915 F2d 363, 365; see also 7TH CIRCUIT FEDERAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL 6.07 [Reliance On Public Authority], Committee comment (1999).)

See 7th Circuit Federal Jury Instructions - Criminal 6.07.

See also 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 6.10.

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

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257

PRACTICE NOTE: See U.S. v. Hedges (11th Cir. 1990) 912 F2d 1397, 1405 [defendant had consulted with Standards of Conduct Counselor].

See 7th Circuit Federal Jury Instructions - Criminal 6.07.

See also 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 6.10.