Also known as: official statements of the law
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A pronouncement of legal rules or interpretations issued by a legislature, court, administrative agency, or authorized public official. The statement supplies the basis for a narrow mistake-of-law defense when a defendant reasonably relies on it and the statement is later determined to be invalid or erroneous.
Lena is operations director for Ridgeway Transport. She obtains a written exemption notice on federal transportation agency letterhead authorizing longer driver shifts without required rest breaks. After a court later invalidates the exemption, prosecutors charge her with violating the rest-break statute. Her reasonable reliance on the agency document supplies the official statement of the law that supports a mistake-of-law defense.
Federal agents arrest Marrero after he carries a firearm into a federal building. Marrero claims he relied on an official interpretation from a federal officer stating that his conduct was lawful. The court later determines the officer's interpretation was erroneous. Marrero's reasonable reliance on that official statement of the law forms the basis for his asserted mistake-of-law defense.
Defendant Marrero was a Federal corrections officer employed at a facility in Danbury, Connecticut. In 1977 he was arrested inside a Manhattan social club while carrying a loaded .38 caliber automatic pistol. At the time of arrest he asserted his Federal corrections officer status and maintained that he was authorized to carry the weapon without a permit. Marrero claimed that his belief rested on interpretations supplied by fellow officers and teachers together with the wording of the peace officer statutes themselves. The case had already moved through several procedural stages before trial. Marrero's pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment was granted at 94 Misc 2d 367. The Appellate Division reversed that order and reinstated the indictment by a divided vote at 71 AD2d 346. Marrero's subsequent appeal from the Appellate Division order lapsed and was dismissed. At trial Marrero sought to present evidence that his personal misunderstanding of the statutory definition of a peace officer excused his conduct. The trial court rejected the proffered defense, refused to charge the jury on the issue, and the jury returned a verdict convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
View caseThe Twitchells follow advice in an official church publication stating that prayer alone satisfies legal duties toward a sick child. After their child dies, prosecutors charge them with manslaughter. The publication was issued by the public officer charged with interpreting the relevant religious-exemption statute. Their reasonable reliance on that official statement of the law supports a mistake-of-law defense.
David and Ginger Twitchell were the parents of Robyn Twitchell, who died on April 8, 1986, at the age of two and one-half years. Robyn's death resulted from peritonitis caused by the perforation of his bowel, which had been obstructed as a result of an anomaly known as Meckel's diverticulum. Evidence presented at trial indicated that this condition could be corrected by surgery with a high success rate. The Twitchells are practicing Christian Scientists who grew up in Christian Science families and believe in healing by spiritual treatment. During Robyn's five-day illness from Friday, April 4, through Tuesday, April 8, they retained a Christian Science practitioner, a Christian Science nurse, and at one time consulted with Nathan Talbot, who held a position in the church known as the Committee on Publication. As a result of that consultation, David Twitchell read a church publication concerning the legal rights and obligations of Christian Scientists in Massachusetts. That publication quoted a portion of G.L. c. 273, § 1, as then amended, which accepted remedial treatment by spiritual means alone as satisfying any parental obligation not to neglect a child or to provide a child with physical care. The Twitchells appealed their convictions of involuntary manslaughter, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted their request for direct appellate review.
A statute or other enactment, a judicial decision, an administrative order or grant of permission, or an official interpretation by the public officer or body charged with interpreting, administering, or enforcing the law all qualify. Private advice, blogs, or informal comments do not qualify even if they appear authoritative.
Supporting sources
…for treating as a defense the belief that conduct is not a violation of law when a defendant has reasonably relied on an official statement of the law, later determined to be wrong, contained in an official interpretation of the public official who is charged by law with the responsibility for the interpretation or enforcement of the law…
…added]). While providing a narrow escape hatch, the idea was simultaneously to encourage the public to read and rely on official statements of the law, not to have individuals conveniently and personally question the validity and interpretation of the law and act on that basis. If later the statute was invalidated, one who mistakenly…
…1979) 477 F. Supp. 463, 480.) It focuses on those circumstances in which an individual acts "in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous," and is then prosecuted for a violation of the law. (Model Pen. Code, § 2.04, subd. (3)(b).) Unlike a fair-notice defense, the reasonable…
Yes. The defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance that he acted in reasonable reliance on an official statement later determined to be invalid or erroneous.
Supporting sources
Continued conduct after public withdrawal of the statement can render reliance unreasonable and defeat the defense. A measured response that promptly ceases the conduct after withdrawal supports the claim of reasonable reliance.
Supporting sources
An internal memo can support the defense if it constitutes an official interpretation by the officer charged with enforcement and the defendant's reliance was reasonable. Courts examine whether the memo's internal nature or other circumstances made reliance unreasonable.
Supporting sources
Awareness of separate federal criminal penalties and internal doubts about whether a local civil-only permit overrides federal criminal law can render reliance unreasonable and defeat the defense.
Supporting sources