Week 7 - Ignorance of the Law

What was the level of intent required in Idaho in State v. Fox?

Issue(s):

1. Does possession of a controlled substance under Idaho law require proof that the defendant knew the substance was illegal (e.g., a controlled substance)?

2. Can a defendant raise a “mistake of law” or “good‑faith ignorance of the law” defense to possession of a controlled substance charge?

Facts:
Milton Fox ordered about 100,000 tablets of ephedrine from an out‑of‑state mail‑order supplier and had them shipped to Idaho. In some states, ephedrine is a legal over‑the‑counter drug, but in Idaho it had been classified as a Schedule II controlled substance in 1988. Fox tried to introduce out‑of‑state magazine ads for ephedrine to show he did not know possessing it in Idaho was illegal, but the trial court rejected those exhibits and refused jury instructions that would have required the state to prove he knew ephedrine was a controlled substance. Fox then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal those evidentiary and jury‑instruction rulings.

Defendant and Plaintiff argument:

• Defendant (Fox):

  • Argued that the crime required some form of intent (specific intent), and that the state should have to prove he knew ephedrine was a controlled substance.

  • Tried to use Idaho Code § 18‑114 (the “act and intent” rule) and §‑18‑201 (mistake of fact) to show he lacked guilty intent or that his mistake was similar to a mistake‑of‑fact defense.

  • Argued that the magazines and jury instructions were relevant to show he did not know possessing ephedrine in Idaho was illegal.

• Plaintiff (State):

  • Argued that the possession statute (I.C. § 37‑2732(c)) does not require proof that the defendant knew the substance was controlled; only that he knowingly possessed it.

  • Contended that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” and that Fox’s mistake that ephedrine was legal was a mistake of law, not a mistake of fact, so it was not a valid defense.

Procedural posture:
Fox was charged with one count of possession of ephedrine, a controlled substance, in Idaho. During trial, the court excluded his proffered magazine ads and refused both the state’s and the defense’s proposed jury instructions that would have required the jury to find Fox knew ephedrine was a controlled substance. Fox then entered a conditional guilty plea under Idaho Criminal Rule 11(a)(2), preserving his right to appeal the trial court’s ruling on the exhibits and jury instructions. The case came to the Idaho Supreme Court on appeal from that plea.

Judgment:
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, upholding Fox’s conviction for possession of ephedrine as a controlled substance.

Applicable Rules and Precedent:

• Idaho Code § 37‑2732(c): makes it unlawful to possess a controlled substance unless obtained by valid prescription or otherwise authorized, but does not explicitly state a mental‑state requirement.

• Idaho Code § 18‑114: says that crime generally requires a “union of act and intent,” but the court has held this means only that the defendant intended to perform the act (general intent), not that he intended to commit a crime.

• Idaho Code § 18‑201: allows a defense based on “ignorance or mistake of fact” that disproves criminal intent, but not ignorance or mistake of law.

• State v. Sterrett, 35 Idaho 580, 207 P. 1071 (1922): held that if a statute does not require a particular intent, the defendant’s intent or lack of criminal intent is immaterial.

• State v. Parish, 79 Idaho 75, 310 P.2d 1082 (1957): explained that the intent required by § 18‑114 is the intent to knowingly perform the prohibited act, not the intent to commit a crime.

Holding:

1. The crime of possession of a controlled substance under I.C. § 37‑2732(c) requires only general intent, meaning the defendant must knowingly possess the substance; the state does not have to prove the defendant knew the substance was illegal or controlled.

2. A defendant cannot rely on a good‑faith mistake of law (claiming he did not know the substance was illegal) as a defense; such a mistake is not recognized under Idaho law.

Reasoning:

• The possession statute (I.C. § 37‑2732(c)) does not list any mental state as an element of the offense, so the court treated it as a general‑intent crime.

• Under Idaho’s general intent framework, the defendant must only intend to perform the act (possessing the substance), not intend to break the law.

• Fox’s argument was that he did not know ephedrine was illegal in Idaho, which is a mistake of law, not a mistake of fact, so Idaho Code § 18‑201 did not help him.

• The court noted that ignorance of the law is not a defense absent clear statutory language creating such an exception, and that Fox could have checked the controlled‑substances schedules before ordering large quantities of ephedrine.

• Because only the defendant’s knowledge of possession matters, evidence that he did not know ephedrine was illegal was irrelevant and properly excluded.

Rule of Law:
Under Idaho law, possession of a controlled substance is a general‑intent crime: the state must prove the defendant knowingly possessed the substance, but does not have to prove the defendant knew the substance was illegal or listed as controlled. A good‑faith mistake of law (believing the substance is legal) is not a defense unless the statute expressly provides one.

Key takeaway:
Even if a person genuinely believes a drug like ephedrine is legal (because it is sold over‑the‑counter elsewhere or in a different context), Idaho law can still convict them for possession of that substance as long as they knew they possessed it, because the law does not require knowledge that the substance is controlled. This makes drug‑possession statutes quite strict on ordinary people who may not be aware of constantly changing controlled‑substances lists.

What is ignorantia juris neminem excusat?

A legal principle stating that ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it

What is the general policy of the penal code?

ignorantia juris neminem excusat

Was general intent found in the code in regards to People v. Marrero?

Facts: D was a federal officer arrested for carrying a loaded gun without a permit, but certain law exempts “peace officers” from statute but only in official duties. D argued personal misunderstanding of statute should excuse.

Key takeaway: Ignorance or misunderstanding of the law is generally not a defense, even if the person misreads a statute and thinks his conduct is legal.

What did the law say if getting advice creates a defense in Hopkins v. State?

Even if a person’s misunderstanding is honest and confirmed by an official, Maryland held that ignorance or misreading of the law is generally no excuse for violating a criminal statute, putting signs illegal.

Why was relying on a district court decision not allowed in State v. Striggles?

Even if a person acts in good faith based on a lower‑court ruling or letters from local officials, that does not excuse him from criminal liability if the highest court later says the act was illegal.

Reasons that ignorance of law is unfair

punishing people for being ignorant instead of punishing them for bad choices.

Why law punishes people even when they reasonably misunderstood

others will pay closer attention and comply more carefully

Ignorantian juris neminem excusat is often associated with…

phrase “everyone is presumed to know the law”

What is mala in se?

Acts that are inherently wrong, such as murder or theft, and are universally recognized as immoral, easily understood.

What is mala prohibita?

Acts that are considered wrong because they are prohibited by law, rather than inherently immoral

One with “innate sense of right and wrong” can understand what but not necessarily what?

Mala in se, mala prohibita

What is the ignorantia legis concept?

A legal principle stating that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating it.

What was John Austin’s reason for ignorance of law?

Would be practically impossible to deal with.

• If people could always say “I didn’t know the law,” everyone would claim ignorance whenever they were caught.

What was Oliver Holmes reason for ignorance of law?

deterrence and public safety—the law is willing to be harsh toward individuals to make sure people actually obey and stop serious harm.

What was Jerome Hall’s reason for ignorance of law?

how law works—you can’t let each person’s personal view of the law override official rulings, or the whole legal system becomes subjective and unstable.

Proposals to eliminate ignorantia juris

NJ penal code states conduct does not constiute if mistake is reasonable and actor diligently tried to find out what the law meant, and ordinary, law‑abiding, careful person in the same situation would also have believed the conduct was legal.

In Lambert v. California, why did the Supreme Court reverse despite their being a law?

Facts: P was charged under a Los Angeles ordinance requiring registration for convicted felons.

Key Takeaway: In this rare kind of law (a silent, passive registration requirement), the government must show that the person either knew about the duty to register or should have known, before it can punish them for failing to register. When there is no notice, no chance to comply, and no real wrongdoing, convicting someone anyway violates due process.

What does the Model Penal Code state when ignorance of law can be a defense?

1. The law wasn’t reasonably available

2. Reasonable reliance on an official statement of the law

In situations where ignorance of law could be possible, who hold the burden of proof?

defendant must prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence—meaning it is more likely than not

What is ignorance of law mostly applied? Why should they apply to these laws?

in regulatory or “technical” laws (like complex rules about business, licenses, or permits) that don’t involve deeply immoral acts, One‑off mistakes caused by unclear or misinterpreted law should not be punished as harshly.

In Cox v. Louisiana, what did the police say that allowed the conviction to be reversed?

Court held that the government cannot lure someone into doing something and then punish them for it when officials themselves said it was okay, even if it technically violates the law.

Why in Long v. State was mistake of law unable to excuse the crime?

Facts: D was married in Delaware, then went to Arkansas to get a divorce and later returned to Delaware. Before he got that divorce, and again before he remarried, he asked a Delaware lawyer whether he was really free to remarry in Delaware, and was twice told “yes.” Later, charged with bigamy because Delaware law did not recognize his Arkansas divorce

Key Takeaway: Even if someone honestly and reasonably believes their conduct is legal because a lawyer told them so, that mistake of law still usually does not excuse them from a general‑intent crime like bigamy.

Ignorance or mistake about the criminal law is…

not a defense

Mistake of fact can be…

a defense if you lacked the required mental state (mens rea),

A mistake about non-criminal law that required specific intent…

can be a defense if it cancels out the intent

A mistake about non-criminal law that falls under general-ntent…

usual rule was that no mistake of law can excuse the defendant in a general‑intent crime.

In the Model Penal Code “Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense”, what does or law mean?

wants to allow a defense not just for mistakes about facts, but also for mistakes about non‑criminal law, treats mistakes of non‑criminal law the same as mistakes of fact across all levels of culpability (purpose, knowledge, recklessness, negligence).

Long v. State (revisited), why did the court finally change the decision?

recognized that a mistake about divorce law (thinking the Arkansas divorce was valid in Delaware) could remove the criminal mind, just like a mistake of fact (thinking a spouse was dead) would.

In People v. Bray what did the court decide about a general-intent offense and a mistake of fact?

Facts: Bray was convicted for felon in possession but claimed did not know he was a felon because Kansas law unclear whether his past offense counted as a felony.

When the crime requires the defendant to fit a factual description (like “being a felon”), a genuine mistake about that fact can be a defense, even if the crime is a general‑intent offense.

3 Steps Common Law Mistake Analysis

1. Classify Mistake - options: mistake of fact, mistake of noncrimnal law, or mistake of criminal law

2. Identify and classify relevant AR element - options: general intent, specific intent, strict liability

3. Apply mistake rule - options: Mistake of criminal law: no defense except in cases of official misstatement, Mistake of noncriminal law: defense only to specific intent, Mistake of fact: defense to specific intent (if honest) and general intent (if honest and reasonable; no defense to strict liability)

2 Step MPC Mistake Analysis

1. Classify mistake - options: mistake of fact, mistake of noncrimnal law, or mistake of criminal law

2. Apply relevant mistake rule - options: Mistake of criminal law: no defense except in cases of official misstatement, Mistake of noncriminal law and fact: defense if they negate the MR required or if the law provides that the ignorance or mistake is a defense