#17104 - Mistake Of Law - Criminal Law

Mistake of Law

• General rule - Ignorance of law is not an excuse

  • Advantages: (utilitarian concerns)

    • Incentivizes people to learn about the law

    • Makes it easier for government to prove crime

    • Deters exploitation of loopholes in the law, deter lawlessness

    • General notice about wrongdoing (retributive)

    • Punish according to harm caused (retributive)

  • Disadvantages: (retributive concerns)

    • Should not punish wrongdoing that is not conscious

    • Laws are complicated

    • Punishment not proportional to intended act

    • Cannot deter acts that are unconscious, so no benefit to society by punishing (utilitarian)

    • Want burden on government to inform people and make laws clear and accessible (utilitarian)

• Exceptions to rule

  • (1) Material element: statute makes relevant a legal fact by including it as a material element of the crime

    • And mistake negates the mens rea required for the element

    • Weiss: "without authority of the law" and "willfully" MR (traveled down from beginning of statute)

    • Smith: "property belonging to another" and "reckless" MR

    • Shuffelt: "another woman's husband" is a legal fact, no MR but can infer recklessly/negligently because this element makes the whole conduct blameworthy

    • NOT Marrero: here the statute is strict liability and no mens rea required

    • MPC 2.04(1) says defense is available if (1) ignorance/mistake of fact/law negates the required mens rea OR (2) statute allows the defense

  • (2) Statute includes language of "knowingly/willfully/intentionally," interpreted by court to require awareness of breaking the law

    • When (1) statute is complicated (2) legislature would not want to criminalize a broad range of apparently innocent behavior (3) actor is unsophisticated

      • Cheek: "willfully," tax law is complicated, gov needs to prove awareness of breaking the law

      • Liporota: "knowingly," defendant used food stamps in non-conforming stores

    • VS. Only require defendant's awareness that he is committing the act that happens to break the law (not require knowledge of the specific law) when

      • (1) Defendant is a sophisticated and specialized actor

      • (2) context indicates he should have had the opportunity/onus to investigate law

      • (3) industry/area is highly regulated and concerns public welfare interest

      • (4) law is straightforward

      • Int'l Minerals: "knowingly," transporting corrosive liquids

      • Overholt: "willfully" disposing contaminated water

  • (3) free standing statute allows mistake of law defense under certain conditions - ex. statute recognized official reliance

    • NY 15.20: mistake of law defense allowed if relied on official statement of law, later determined to be wrong

      • Marrero Court adopted this interpretation of 15.20 probably because (1) did not want people to make reasonable but wrong interpretations about the law and then escape liability with a mistake defense (2) looked at MPC 2.04(3) language

      • Response: NY statute explicitly excluded the MPC language about "later determined erroneous"

    • NOT Marrero because he did not rely on an official statement later proved to be wrong, he merely wrongly interpreted the statute

    • MPC 2.04(3): defense available if (1) gov did not make available/publish the law OR (2) defendant relied on official statement later proved to be wrong

  • (4) court recognized official reliance

    • Rare - fact - dependent who was asked

    • Hopkins: reliance on attorneys' advice (not official interpretation) does not give mistake defense

    • BUT Albertini (exception): reliance on a court ruling (later overturned) allows mistake defense

  • (5) Constitution/Due Process limitation: not allowing mistake defense is unconstitutional because of insufficient notice

    • In some cases, unconstitutional to convict D of a crime when D didn't know about the legal requirement

    • Constitution requires awareness of the law for a passive crime/omission

    • ** especially status crimes (criminalizing your existence; pedophile v. drug addict), passive crime (omission crime where you have a duty but you don't know about the duty)

    • Lambert: allowed mistake defense because (1) omission (failure to register as felony) rather than act (2) no notice given (3) no opportunity to correct behavior (4) crime is mallum in prohibitum/created by statute not mallum in se > otherwise violation of due process

      • Gov needs to prove actual knowledge or high probability of knowledge of the law

      • Good law but limited to its facts (only apply to omissions and mallum prohibitum crimes)

      • Dissent: worry that generalization of majority holding will lead to people in SL offenses getting mistake defense

    • BUT Wilson: no defense bc

      • More notice - the protective order issued against him creates higher probability of knowing that he cannot possess firearms

        • Versus Lambert: felony status and registration requirement in another state has a looser connection

      • Not crime of omission

      • Public policy reason for prohibiting gun usage by felons

• MPC 2.04(1)

  • Mistake of law defense is allowed IF mistake negatives MR OR law gives defense

• MPC 2.04(3)

  • Mistake of law defense allowed IF (1) law not published or made available OR (2) D reasonably relies on official statement later proved erroneous