§ 18.01   General Principle

 

Under both the common law and Model Penal Code, ignorance of the law excuses no one.  Nevertheless, a number of doctrines apply when a defendant is ignorant or mistaken about the law.

 

§ 18.02   Reasonable-Reliance Doctrine (Entrapment by Estoppel)

 

Under both the common law and Model Penal Code, a person is excused for committing a criminal offense if he reasonably relies on an official statement of the law, later determined to be erroneous, obtained from a person or public body with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense.  

 

[A]  "Official Statement" – For a statement of the law to be "official," it must be contained in:

 

 

Even if a person obtains an interpretation of the law from a proper source, that interpretation must come in an "official" manner, not an offhand or informal manner. For example, a person may rely on an official "opinion letter" from the state Attorney General, formally interpreting the statute in question.

 

[B]  Exemptions to the Reasonable Reliance Doctrine

 

[1]  Reliance on One’s Own Interpretation of the Law – A person is not excused for committing a crime if he relies on his own erroneous reading of the law, even if a reasonable person – even a reasonable law–trained person – would have similarly misunderstood the law. 

 

[2]  Advice of Prosecutor – Although there is very little case law on the matter, there is some support for the proposition that a person may not reasonably rely on an interpretation of a law provided by a local prosecuting attorney.

 

[3]  Advice of Private Counsel – Reliance on erroneous advice provided by a private attorney is not a defense to a crime.

 

§ 18.03   Fair Notice and the Lambert Principle

 

[A]  Common Law – At common law, every one is presumed to know the law. However, in Lambert v. California [355 U.S. 225 (1957)], the Court overturned the petitioner’s conviction for failing to register with the city of Los Angeles as a prior convicted felon, as required pursuant to a strict liability ordinance of which he was unaware; the Court reversed on "lack of fair notice" due process grounds.

 

The Supreme Court held in Lambert that, under very limited circumstances, a person who is unaware of a duly enacted and published criminal statute may successfully assert a constitutional defense in a prosecution of that offense.

 

Key to the court’s decision in Lambert was the passive nature of the offense.  Namely, (1) it punished an omission (failure to register); (2) the duty to act was imposed on the basis of a status (presence in Los Angeles), rather than on the basis of an activity; and (3) the offense was malum prohibitum. As a result of these factors, there was nothing to alert a reasonable person to the need to inquire into the law.

 

[B]  Model Code – The Model Penal Code’s fair notice exception [MPC § 2.04(3)(a)] applies where:

 

 

§ 18.04   Ignorance or Mistake that Negates Mens rea

 

[A]  Common Law

 

[1]  "Different Law" Approach – A defendant’s lack of knowledge of, or misunderstanding regarding the meaning or application of, another law – usually, it will be a nonpenal law – will negate the mens rea element in the definition of the criminal offense.  When a defendant seeks to avoid conviction for a criminal offense by asserting a different-law mistake, on the ground that the different-law mistake negates his mens rea, the first matter for determination is whether the offense charged is one of specific-intent, general-intent, or strict-liability.

 

[2]  Specific-Intent Offenses – A different-law mistake, whether reasonable or unreasonable, is a defense in the prosecution of a specific-intent offense, if the mistake negates the specific intent in the prosecuted offense.

 

[3]  General-Intent Offenses – Although there is very little case law on point, a different-law mistake, whether reasonable or unreasonable, apparently is not a defense to a general-intent crime.

 

[4]  Strict-Liability Offenses – A different-law mistake is never a defense to a strict-liability offense.

 

[B]  Model Penal Code – MPC § 2.04(1) provides that mistake or ignorance of the law is a defense if it negates a material element of the offense.  Application of this defense generally surfaces in cases of a different-law mistake.