Criminal defenses
Part of the common law series
Defenses to crime
Actual innocence
Excuse and exculpation
Defenses that deny the act:
Alibi  · Mistaken identity
Frameup  · Falsified evidence
False confession  · Automatism
Defenses that negate intent:
Infancy  · Entrapment
Insanity  · Mental disorder
M'Naghten Rules
Diminished responsibility
Mistake of law  · Mistake of fact
Intoxication
Defenses that justify the act:
Self defense  · Consent
Duress  · Necessity
Provocation
See also Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Other areas of the common law
Contract law  · Tort law  · Property law
Wills and trusts  · Evidence
Portals: Law  · Criminal justice

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

Mistake of law is a defense sometimes raised in criminal cases, although rarely with any success. It is a longstanding principle of public policy that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", so a person who commits a crime with the firmly-held, but mistaken, belief that the proposed act is permitted will nonetheless be held liable as a criminal. Image File history File links Scale_of_justice. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... Actual innocence is the most widely used - yet often the least studied - defense to crime. ... In jurisprudence, an excuse or justification is a form of immunity which must be distinguished from an exculpation. ... Mistaken Identity may refer to albums: Mistaken Identity (Kim Carnes album) Mistaken Identity (Delta Goodrem album) This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title. ... A frameup refers to the act of framing someone, that is, providing false evidence in order to prove someone guilty of a crime. ... Falsified evidence, forged evidence or tainted evidence is used to either convict an innocent person, or to guarantee conviction of a guilty person. ... False Confession was a hardcore punk band in the early 1980s that emerged in the Oxnard, California area. ... Automatism is a disassociative state where the individual suffering from it has no control over their actions. ... The defense of infancy is a form of defense known as an excuse so that defendants falling within the definition of an infant are excluded from criminal liability for their actions, if at the relevant time, they had not reached an age of criminal responsibility. ... In jurisprudence, entrapment is a legal defense by which a defendant may argue that he or she should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because he/she was induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. ... In a criminal trial, the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, via which defendants may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were mentally ill at the time of their allegedly criminal actions. ... In criminal law of commonwealth countries, the defense of mental disorder - sometimes called the defence of mental illness - is a legal defence by excuse, by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were at the time of their... The MNaghten Rules are used to establish insanity as an excuse to potential criminal liability, but the definitional criteria establish insanity in the legal and not the psychological sense. ... In criminal law, diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity) is a potential defense by excuse by which defendants argue that although they broke the law, they should not be held criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were diminished or impaired. ... Mistake of law and mistake of fact are two types of defense by excuse, via which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law or liable for damages under a civil law action. ... An intoxication defense, in criminal law, is a defense by excuse, via which a defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were intoxicated. ... This article and defense of property deal with the legal concept of excused (sometimes termed justified) acts that might otherwise be illegal. ... In the criminal law, consent may be an excuse and prevent the defendant from incurring liability for what was done. ... For English law on the criminal defence, see duress in English law. ... This article is about the law definition of necessity. ... For the country-specific law, see provocation in English law. ... Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses. ... Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated the criminal law. ... A contract is any promise or set of promises made by one party to another for the breach of which the law provides a remedy. ... In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. ... This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources. ... This does not adequately cite its references or sources. ... The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation and the event of such persons incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. ... The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ... Image File history File links Circle-question. ... In most litigation under the common law adversarial system the defendant, perhaps with the assistance of counsel, may allege or present defenses (or defences) in order to avoid liability, civil or criminal. ... Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses. ... Public policy or ordre public is the body of fundamental principles that underpin the operation of legal systems in each state. ... It has been suggested that presumed knowledge of the law be merged into this article or section. ...

General principles

As a matter of expediency, there is an irrebuttable presumption that people who are about to engage in an activity will satisfy themselves before they start that their plans will not break the law. For this purpose, all states publish the law and make it available for the public to buy at a reasonable price and read whether in hard copy or electronic format. For example, a person should not be allowed to claim the honest belief that it is legal to grow marijuana for medical use. He or she should have investigated the local law before beginning cultivation (although it is admitted that juries, under the 5th amendment, have the power of jury nullification in their verdicts when a trial does not match their collective values). A conclusive presumption (also known as an irrebuttable presumption) in English law is an presumption of law that cannot that cannot be rebutted by evidence and must be taken to be the case whatever the evidence to the contrary. ... For the purposes of Public International Law and Private International Law, a state is a defined group of people, living within defined territorial boundaries and subject, more or less, to an autonomous legal system exercising jurisdiction through properly constituted courts. ... A Cannabis sativa plant The drug cannabis, also called marijuana, is produced from parts of the cannabis plant, primarily the cured flowers and gathered trichomes of the female plant. ... This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources. ... Jury nullification occurs where a jury, apparently ignoring the letter of the law and the instructions by the court, and taking into account all of the evidence presented, renders a verdict in contradiction to the law. ... In law, a verdict indicates the judgment of a case before a court of law. ...

The presumption will also apply in the potentially unfair situation of a change in the law which takes place when the accused had no opportunity to become aware of it, e.g. the accused was out hunting in the wilderness and did not know that the law changed to protect an endangered species. This principle is based on a line of old case authority decided before the invention of radio and the modern technologies of communication. It is almost inconceivable today that a person could fail to be aware that a law was about to be changed if that law was going to affect some aspect of his or her activities. If the hunter went into the wild knowing that the relevant law could be changed at any time, he or she was reckless as to the state of the law when killing the relevant animal and so would not have benefit of the defense. // Within the timeline of radio, many people were involved in the invention of radio transmission of information as we know it today. ... Communication allows people to exchange thoughts by one of several methods. ...

Conversely, under the doctrine of impossibility, no crime is committed if a person mistakenly intends to break the law. For instance, if a person grows oregano while honestly believing it is a crime to grow oregano, this is an example of legal impossibility. In a legal system which adheres to the doctrine of legal impossibility, no consequence will come of that action despite the grower's intent to break the law. An example of a related concept of factual impossibility would be if a person grows oregano while honestly believing that the oregano is actually marijuana (in a jurisdiction where this is illegal). Most jurisdictions allow legal impossibility as a defense but not factual impossibility. [1] (see also actus reus) Impossible is also a name of a skateboarding trick. ... Binomial name Origanum vulgare L. Oregano or Pot Marjoram (Origanum vulgare) is a species of Origanum, native to Europe, the Mediterranean region and southern and central Asia. ... Legal impossibility is a traditional common law defense to a charge of an attempted crime. ... Binomial name Origanum vulgare L. Oregano or Pot Marjoram (Origanum vulgare) is a species of Origanum, native to Europe, the Mediterranean region and southern and central Asia. ... Binomial name Origanum vulgare L. Oregano or Pot Marjoram (Origanum vulgare) is a species of Origanum, native to Europe, the Mediterranean region and southern and central Asia. ... A Cannabis sativa plant The drug cannabis, also called marijuana, is produced from parts of the cannabis plant, primarily the cured flowers and gathered trichomes of the female plant. ... Actus reus is the action (or inaction, in the case of criminal negligence and similar crimes which are sometimes called acts of omission) which, in combination with the mens rea (guilty mind), produces criminal liability in common law based criminal law jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom. ...

Some states make a distinction between a mistake as to the substance and effect of existing laws, and a mistake that the law creates a specific right to act in the particular way. Suppose, for example, that A, the owner of a vehicle, takes it into a garage for repair. When returning to collect it, A finds that the vehicle has been left parked in the street. If he has an honest belief that he has the right as an owner to retake possession of the vehicle without paying the outstanding bill for the repairs, he will not steal it despite the fact that the garage holds a lien over the vehicle and so has the better right to possession until the bill is paid. This form of the defense is difficult to prove because the defendant must be able to prove that he believed in something more positive than the law permitted the particular behavior. The belief must be that the law creates and vests a specific right to act in that way. In English law, a limited form of statutory offense is termed "claim of right". Under the Theft Act 1968 and the Criminal Damage Act 1971, a defense will arise if the defendant honestly believes that he is entitled to act in the way he did and this will negate the relevant mens rea element (e.g. of dishonesty under s2 Theft Act 1968). In Chamberlain v Lindon [1998] 1 WLR 1252 [2] Lindon demolished a wall to protect a right-of-way, Despite allowing nine months to pass before acting, Lindon honestly believed that it was immediately necessary to protect his legal rights without having to resort to civil litigation. For the purposes of s5(2): In law, lien is the broadest term for any sort of charge or encumbrance against an item of property that secures the payment of a debt or performance of some other obligation. ... English law is a formal term of art that describes the law for the time being in force in England and Wales. ... The Theft Act 1968 (1968 c. ... Under English law, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is the main statute covering damage to property. ... Dishonesty is a term which in common usage may be defined as the act of being dishonest; to act without honesty; a lack of probity, to cheat, lying or being deliberately deceptive; lacking in integrity; to be knavish, perfidious, corrupt or treacherous; charlatanism or quackery. ... Right-of-way is a legal term which may have any of several meanings: priority at a crossing, or in traffic. ...

it is not necessary to decide whether Lindon’s action was justified as a matter of civil law. For the purpose of the criminal law, what matters is whether Lindon believed that his actions were reasonable, i.e. a subjective test.

It seems, therefore, that a "lawful excuse" will arise when a person honestly but mistakenly believes that the actions are necessary and reasonable. Whether the belief is justified is irrelevant.

Mistake of non-governing law in the United States

One narrow area of exception occurs where a person makes a mistake of non-governing law. For example, suppose Jennifer is married to Judd, but decides to get a divorce in order to marry Ben. However, Jennifer mistakenly believes that the divorce was final when she submitted the paperwork required by the state, and did not realize that she had to wait for a court to pronounce her divorced. In the interim, she marries Ben, and so is technically committing bigamy because she has married a second man before her divorce from the first was complete. Jennifer's mistake was not one of governing law (she did not mistakenly believe it was legal to be married to two people), but rather a mistake of non-governing law, which is akin to a mistake of fact. Depending on the jurisdiction in which the act took place, Jennifer may be allowed to raise the defense of mistake of law in such a scenario. For the record label, see Divorce Records. ... Polygamy, literally many marriages in ancient Greek, is a marital practice in which a person has more than one spouse simultaneously (as opposed to monogamy where each person has a maximum of one spouse at any one time). ...