State v. West - 33133 ( La. App. 2 Cir 03/01/00), 754 So. 2d 408

Rule:

To assert the affirmative defense of mistake of law, a defendant must prove that he reasonably relied on the act of the legislature in repealing an existing criminal provision, or in otherwise purporting to make the offender's conduct lawful, or that he relied on a final judgment of a competent court of last resort that a provision making the conduct in question criminal was unconstitutional. 

Facts:

On February 21, 1999, defendant Mardrick West's brother, Marshall Jackson, III, was driving West’s vehicle on Highway 80 in Greenwood, Louisiana when he was stopped by officers with the Greenwood Police Department for a traffic violation. Upon searching the vehicle, police officers discovered a loaded nine millimeter clip in the glove compartment. Jackson informed the officers that he did not own a gun, but his brother owned a gun. The officers followed Jackson to his residence and Jackson gave the officers consent to search the residence. Upon entering the residence, the officers discovered West asleep in a bedroom. According to the officers, they noticed a 9 mm handgun, in plain view, between the mattresses on the bed. West admitted that he owned the gun. Thus, he was arrested and charged by bill of information with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Relying on a letter entitled "Verification of First Offender Pardon" from the Department of Public Safety and Corrections and this court's decision in State v. Riser, 30,201 (La. App. 2d Cir. 12/12/97), 704 So. 2d 946, West filed a notice of affirmative defense of mistake of law. West submitted accompanying documents into the record which revealed that he had received a letter from the Department of Public Safety and Corrections informing him that he had been "fully pardoned of the offense . . . and that all rights of citizenship and franchise had been restored in Louisiana." The state filed a motion to prohibit the mistake of law defense, arguing that State v. Riser, supra., erred in stating that a mistake of law defense could be proven based in part on the first offender letter from the Department of Corrections. The trial court denied the state's motion to prohibit West’s mistake of law defense.

Issue:

 Did the trial court err in denying the state’s motion to prohibit West’s mistake of law defense?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

In the instant case, West argued that because LSA-R.S. 14:95.1 and LSA-R.S. 15:572 were conflicting and misleading, the mistake of law defense was applicable to his case. Ignorance of the provisions of the criminal code or any criminal statute is not a defense to any criminal prosecution. In purchasing his handgun, West relied on his compliance with the Brady Bill and the letter of "Verification of First Offender Pardon" from the Department of Public Safety and Corrections. However, the state agency's letter failed to specifically identify exactly which rights and/or privileges had been restored. West did not set forth facts sufficient to sustain a defense of mistake of law. In order for the defendant to assert this affirmative defense, he must prove that he reasonably relied on the act of the legislature in repealing an existing criminal provision, or in otherwise purporting to make the offender's conduct lawful, or that he relied on a final judgment of a competent court of last resort that a provision making the conduct in question criminal was unconstitutional. The only acts of the legislature at issue here were LSA-R.S. 14:95.1, which criminalizes a defendant's conduct, and LSA-R.S. 15:572, which directs the Department of Corrections to inform the pardonee of his pardon and that his citizenship has been restored. LSA-R.S. 15:572 merely informed the pardonee of what has taken place by operation of law. The statute did not repeal an existing criminal provision, nor did it otherwise purport to make the offender's conduct lawful. Contrary to West’s argument, these statutes were not conflicting, since LSA-R.S. 15:572(D) restores the rights of citizenship subject to the limitations of those rights imposed by LSA-R.S. 14:95.1. West’s affirmative defense of mistake of law was based solely on his interpretation of a letter from a state agency. However, the letter from the Department of Corrections was not (1) an "act of the legislature" repealing an existing criminal statute; (2) an "act of the legislature" otherwise purporting to make the offender's conduct lawful; or (3) a "final judgment of a competent court of last resort" that a provision making the conduct in question criminal was unconstitutional. Thus, West has not established the availability of a defense under LSA-R.S. 14:17.