Glossary

2.7 Mistake of law

5 min read•august 20, 2024

and are crucial concepts in criminal law. While mistake of fact may negate criminal intent, mistake of law is generally not a valid defense. The principle " is no " is deeply rooted in common law.

There are limited exceptions where mistake of law may be considered, such as for or in cases of . The Model Penal Code takes a more nuanced approach, considering the and reasonableness of the mistake.

Mistake of law vs mistake of fact

  • Mistake of law occurs when a defendant is unaware that their conduct is illegal, while mistake of fact involves a misunderstanding about the factual circumstances surrounding the offense
  • Distinguishing between these two types of mistakes is crucial in determining whether a defendant can raise a valid defense in a criminal case
  • In general, mistake of law is not a recognized defense, while mistake of fact may negate the (criminal intent) required for conviction

Ignorance of law as defense

  • The principle that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is deeply rooted in common law and is based on the presumption that individuals have a duty to know and obey the law
  • Allowing ignorance of law as a defense would create a perverse incentive for individuals to remain uninformed about legal obligations and could lead to widespread disregard for the law
  • Courts have consistently rejected the argument that a defendant's lack of knowledge about the illegality of their actions should serve as a valid defense to criminal charges

Specific intent crimes

Mistake of law as defense

Top images from around the web for Mistake of law as defense

  • Law - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal 8 image View original

    Is this image relevant?

  • Acquittal - Free of Charge Creative Commons Post it Note image View original

    Is this image relevant?

  • Law - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal 8 image View original

    Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Mistake of law as defense

  • Law - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal 8 image View original

    Is this image relevant?

  • Acquittal - Free of Charge Creative Commons Post it Note image View original

    Is this image relevant?

  • Law - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal 8 image View original

    Is this image relevant?

1 of 3
  • In limited circumstances, mistake of law may be a valid defense for specific intent crimes, which require proof that the defendant acted with a particular purpose or intent
  • If a defendant's mistake of law negates the specific intent required for the offense, they may be acquitted or convicted of a lesser offense
  • For example, if a defendant believed that they had a legal right to take property (claim of right), this mistake of law could negate the specific intent required for theft

General intent crimes

Irrelevance of mistake of law

  • For , which only require proof that the defendant intended to commit the prohibited act, mistake of law is not a recognized defense
  • The prosecution need not prove that the defendant knew their conduct was illegal, only that they intended to engage in the prohibited behavior
  • Examples of general intent crimes include assault, battery, and trespassing

Strict liability offenses

Mistake of law inapplicable

  • offenses are crimes that do not require proof of any mens rea (criminal intent) and impose liability based solely on the commission of the prohibited act
  • In these cases, mistake of law is not a valid defense, as the defendant's knowledge or intent is irrelevant to establishing guilt
  • Common examples of strict liability offenses include statutory rape, traffic violations, and some regulatory offenses

Exceptions to mistake of law doctrine

Constitutional issues

  • If a law is deemed unconstitutional or violates an individual's constitutional rights, a mistake of law defense may be available
  • For example, if a defendant was prosecuted under a statute that was later found to be unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, their mistake of law could serve as a valid defense

Reliance on official statements

  • In some cases, a defendant may assert a mistake of law defense if they relied on an official statement of the law, such as an opinion from a government agency or a court decision
  • To succeed with this defense, the defendant must typically show that their reliance was reasonable and that the official statement was binding or authoritative

Complex regulatory schemes

  • In the context of (tax law, environmental regulations), courts may be more receptive to mistake of law defenses
  • If the regulations are so intricate or ambiguous that a reasonable person could misinterpret them, a defendant's mistake of law may be excused

Model Penal Code approach

Culpability requirement

  • The Model Penal Code (MPC) takes a more nuanced approach to mistake of law, recognizing it as a defense in certain circumstances
  • Under the MPC, a mistake of law can be a defense if it negates the culpability (mens rea) required for the offense
    • For example, if a crime requires knowledge of the law, a defendant's honest mistake could serve as a defense

Reasonableness of mistake

  • The MPC also considers the reasonableness of the defendant's mistake in determining whether it should serve as a defense
  • If the mistake was objectively reasonable, based on the circumstances and the defendant's efforts to ascertain the law, it is more likely to be recognized as a valid defense

Policy rationales

Encouraging knowledge of law

  • The primary for the mistake of law doctrine is to encourage individuals to learn and abide by the law
  • If ignorance were a valid defense, there would be little incentive for people to familiarize themselves with legal obligations and responsibilities

Preventing false claims of ignorance

  • Disallowing mistake of law defenses also helps prevent defendants from making false claims of ignorance to avoid criminal liability
  • Without this limitation, defendants could routinely assert that they were unaware of the law, making it more difficult for prosecutors to secure convictions

Proving defendant's knowledge of law

Circumstantial evidence

  • In cases where a defendant's knowledge of the law is at issue, prosecutors may rely on circumstantial evidence to prove that the defendant was aware of the illegality of their actions
  • This evidence could include the defendant's prior convictions, statements made to others, or actions taken to conceal the offense

Willful blindness doctrine

  • Under the , a defendant may be found to have knowledge of the law if they deliberately avoided learning about the legal consequences of their actions
  • If a defendant purposefully remained ignorant of the law to maintain a defense, the court may treat this as equivalent to actual knowledge

Mistake of law in sentencing

Mitigation of punishment

  • While mistake of law is generally not a complete defense, it may be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing
  • If a defendant can demonstrate that their mistake was honest and reasonable, a court may impose a more lenient sentence
  • Conversely, if a defendant has legal expertise or specialized knowledge of the law (attorneys, government officials), their mistake of law may be viewed as an aggravating factor in sentencing
  • In these cases, the defendant's familiarity with the law could be seen as a breach of trust or an abuse of their position, warranting a harsher punishment

Key Terms to Review (22)

Affirmative Defense: An affirmative defense is a legal strategy used by a defendant in a criminal case where they admit to committing the act but argue that there is a valid justification or excuse that absolves them of liability. This type of defense shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, who must provide evidence supporting their claim. By establishing an affirmative defense, defendants aim to negate criminal liability even if the prosecution can prove the essential elements of the crime.
Cheek v. United Kingdom: Cheek v. United Kingdom is a landmark case that deals with the defense of mistake of law, highlighting the principle that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse for committing a crime. The case centers on an individual's conviction for failing to provide a breath sample, raising questions about the legal expectations placed on citizens regarding their knowledge of the law. It underscores the complexities surrounding legal obligations and the rights of individuals in the criminal justice system.
Complex Regulatory Schemes: Complex regulatory schemes refer to intricate systems of rules and regulations that govern specific industries or activities, often involving multiple layers of oversight and various agencies. These schemes are designed to ensure compliance, safety, and ethical standards in sectors like environmental protection, financial services, and health care. They can create challenges for individuals and businesses trying to navigate the legal landscape, particularly when mistakes of law occur due to the intricacies of the regulations.
Culpability Requirement: The culpability requirement is a legal principle that establishes the necessity of a certain level of mental state or intent for an individual to be found criminally liable for their actions. It distinguishes between different degrees of wrongdoing, such as negligence, recklessness, and intentional conduct, and ensures that only those who possess the requisite mens rea (guilty mind) are held accountable under criminal law. This principle serves to protect individuals from being punished for actions they did not intend or foresee.
Defensive Justification: Defensive justification refers to the legal rationale that allows an individual to justify their actions in response to a perceived threat or harm. It essentially asserts that the use of force was necessary and reasonable to protect oneself or others from imminent danger, aligning with principles of self-defense or defense of others. This concept is particularly relevant when evaluating the legality of actions taken in situations where the individual believes they are under attack or facing immediate harm.
Excuse: An excuse in criminal law refers to a legal justification that absolves a defendant from liability due to a recognized reason, such as incapacity or misunderstanding. This concept is crucial in determining whether an individual should be held responsible for a crime when they did not have the necessary intent or understanding required for culpability. Excuses focus on the defendant's state of mind and circumstances at the time of the offense, which can affect their accountability under the law.
General Intent Crimes: General intent crimes refer to offenses where the perpetrator is aware of their actions but does not need to intend the specific outcome of those actions. In these crimes, the focus is on the intention behind the act rather than the result, making it essential to understand the mental state of the offender. This concept can be relevant when evaluating defenses such as necessity or when considering the implications of a mistake of law, as these situations may affect the defendant's level of culpability.
Ignorance of the Law: Ignorance of the law refers to the lack of knowledge or awareness about legal obligations or prohibitions, which can sometimes be used as a defense in legal proceedings. This concept challenges the assumption that individuals are fully aware of all laws, suggesting that unintentional violations can occur due to ignorance. However, most legal systems maintain that ignorance is not an excuse for violating the law, reinforcing personal responsibility to understand legal requirements.
Justification: Justification refers to a legal defense that demonstrates a person's actions were necessary to prevent greater harm or to protect oneself or others. In criminal law, it often involves situations where an individual argues that their conduct was reasonable under the circumstances, effectively asserting that they should not be held criminally liable for their actions due to the context in which they occurred.
Mens Rea: Mens rea refers to the mental state or intent of a person when committing a criminal act. It plays a crucial role in distinguishing between different levels of culpability, as it assesses whether the individual had a guilty mind at the time of the offense, which is essential for establishing liability in criminal law.
Mistake of Fact: Mistake of fact refers to a misunderstanding or incorrect belief regarding a factual situation that negates the intention to commit a crime. It can significantly influence mens rea, as it may demonstrate that an individual did not have the necessary mental state required for liability. This concept helps to assess the defendant's state of mind and whether they truly intended to engage in criminal behavior or if their actions were based on a genuine misconception.
Mistake of Law: A mistake of law occurs when an individual has a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the legal principles or rules governing their actions. Unlike a mistake of fact, where a person misunderstands a factual situation, a mistake of law pertains specifically to the legal obligations and prohibitions that are in place. This distinction is significant because ignorance of the law is generally not considered a valid defense in criminal cases, highlighting the importance of understanding legal standards.
Objective Test: The objective test refers to a standard used in legal contexts to evaluate a person's actions or state of mind based on what a reasonable person would have perceived or understood in similar circumstances. This approach focuses on the external factors surrounding a situation rather than the subjective feelings or motivations of an individual. In criminal law, applying an objective test can clarify whether certain defenses, such as coercion or misunderstanding, are valid by assessing whether a reasonable person would have acted similarly under duress or mistaken legal beliefs.
R v. Smith: R v. Smith is a significant legal case in criminal law that addresses issues related to the actus reus of a crime and the implications of a mistake of law. This case highlights how an individual’s actions can be interpreted in relation to their intent and understanding of the law, demonstrating the complexity of proving criminal liability. The decision in this case plays a crucial role in shaping the understanding of what constitutes the necessary physical act in committing a crime and how a defendant's misunderstanding of legal obligations can impact their culpability.
Reasonable Mistake: A reasonable mistake occurs when a person has a false belief about a fact or law that is reasonable under the circumstances. This concept can be crucial in determining culpability in criminal cases, particularly in distinguishing between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law, where an individual may claim that their misunderstanding or misinterpretation justifies their actions.
Reasonableness of Mistake: Reasonableness of mistake refers to the standard used to evaluate whether a defendant's mistaken belief about a fact or law was justified under the circumstances. This concept helps determine whether a mistake can serve as a defense against criminal liability, as it assesses the defendant's perspective and the reasonableness of their actions in light of their beliefs, rather than solely focusing on objective legal standards.
Reliance on Official Statements: Reliance on official statements refers to the legal principle that individuals may not be held criminally liable for their actions if they relied on a statement made by a government official or agency that they believed to be true. This principle acknowledges the importance of trust in public officials and aims to prevent unjust punishment for actions taken in good faith based on incorrect information disseminated by authorities.
Specific Intent Crimes: Specific intent crimes are offenses where the perpetrator has a conscious desire to engage in conduct that leads to a particular result or has a specific purpose in mind when committing the act. This means that the individual not only intended to perform the act but also intended to achieve a specific outcome, making the mental state crucial in determining culpability. Understanding this distinction helps in analyzing defenses related to necessity and mistake of law, as these can hinge on the defendant's intent at the time of the offense.
Strict Liability: Strict liability refers to a legal standard where a person can be held responsible for an offense without proof of negligence or intent. This concept is often applied in cases involving certain regulatory offenses or activities that pose inherent risks, where merely engaging in the conduct can lead to liability regardless of the defendant's state of mind or intent.
Subjective Test: A subjective test evaluates an individual's personal perspective, intentions, or state of mind at the time of an action, rather than relying solely on objective facts or circumstances. This approach is crucial in assessing various defenses in legal contexts, such as understanding how a person's unique experiences and thoughts influenced their actions, particularly in situations involving coercion or misunderstandings of the law.
Unreasonable Mistake: An unreasonable mistake occurs when a person holds a belief or assumption that is not only mistaken but also lacks a reasonable basis in fact or law. This concept is important in distinguishing between types of mistakes that can absolve or mitigate liability in criminal cases. A mistake is considered unreasonable when a reasonable person in the same situation would not have made the same error, highlighting the objective standard applied to evaluate mistakes in legal contexts.
Willful Blindness Doctrine: The willful blindness doctrine is a legal principle that holds an individual can be deemed to have knowledge of a fact if they deliberately ignore or avoid confirming the existence of that fact. This doctrine is often applied in criminal law to establish culpability when a defendant claims ignorance of illegal activities but has taken steps to avoid acquiring knowledge, suggesting that their ignorance was intentional rather than genuine.
© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.
AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.
Back
Practice QuizGlossary
Practice QuizGlossary
Next guide