Crim Law

Front 1

CL Ignorance of the Law

Back 1

D does not know that the particular act is crim.
Generally defense is not allowed, but in Ratzlaf Ct rev'd D's conviction of willfully structuring monetary transactions holding that his ignorance of the legal duty not to structure the transaction made his act "nonwillful" under the stat

Front 2

CL Mistake of Law

Back 2

D supsects his activity may be subject to crim. but concludes his actions are not crim. = irrelevant. Except in Cheeks (thought taxes didn't apply to him) stats using "willfully"

Front 3

CL Specific intent crimes

Back 3

any mistake of law, no matter how unreasonable, would be a valid defense to a specific intent crime

Front 4

MPC Ignorance or mistake of law

Back 4

2.02(9) expressly provides that neither K nor R or N as to whether conduct constitutes an offense or as to the existence, meaning, or application. Exception - if state has not been publ or made reasonably available or if D acted in rel. on an official statement of law that is later deemed invalid.

Front 5

CL Mistake of Fact

Back 5

Reasonable mistake of fact negate MR & D is acquitted.
Mistake of fact in specific intent = D acquitted.

Front 6

CL mistake of legal fact

Back 6

No amount of reasonableness will exculpate. (E.g., firearm, stolen, intoxicating liquor, peace officer)

Front 7

MPC Mistake of fact

Back 7

2.04(1) - ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact is a defense if it negatives the MR req. to est. a material element of the offense.