Ignorance of the Law Defense Definition

Because Miller involves a federal constitutional challenge to a state law, any appeal against the North Carolina Supreme Court`s decision is directed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Miller, the majority left open the question of the mental state required in the legislation. Then perhaps we will see the courts rule on this law again in a case where the mens rea argument is maintained. An interpretation of the law that requires some form of intent might avoid somewhat sensitive constitutional issues (at least for me). If there are any other measures on this, I will certainly continue with another post. Meanwhile, defence lawyers representing clients convicted of a methamphetamine offence are well advised to inform them of the prohibition on their possession of pseudoephedrine. Questions for discussion 1. What is the difference between a law and a rule? What if you claim you don`t know a rule? What rules do you think should have the force of law? 2. Think of a time when you broke a rule you weren`t aware of. How did you feel? How was the situation resolved? 3. The article talks about some exceptions where people pretended to be ignorant and were not convicted of the crime.

Think of other examples where a person might commit a crime without knowing it and should not be punished. Explain your reasoning. However, in some circumstances, ignorance of the law can be an excuse. For example, if there has not been a public announcement about a law, you could really say that you do not know the law in question. This will be rare, as laws are passed publicly in a particular process in state lawmakers, but if a law is brand new and hasn`t been well published, your defense attorney in Riverside, California might argue that you didn`t know the law. This may be especially the case if the law is unusual and criminalizes conduct that is legal elsewhere. The legal principle of ignorance juris non excusat (ignorance of the law does not excuse) or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no one) derives from Roman law. Essentially, this means that if someone breaks the law, they are still liable, even if they did not know that the law had been broken. There is an important legal principle that says, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

That`s right: you can`t defend your actions by arguing you didn`t know they were illegal, even if you honestly didn`t know you were breaking the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has made some exceptions to the “ignorance is no excuse” defense. In Lambert v. 1957 in California, the court ruled that the fact that the defendant (Lambert) had not registered as a criminal after moving to Los Angeles was a “completely passive act.” Lambert, who had previously been convicted of forgery, was unaware of an order requiring her to register as a criminal if she was in the city of Los Angeles for more than five days. Because she was not allowed to use ignorance of the law as a defence, she was fined $250 and sentenced to three years of probation. Lambert could have faced up to six months in jail for every day in the city after exceeding the five-day limit. The court quashed the conviction.

Justice William Douglas wrote in the court`s majority opinion: “If a person was not aware of the requirement to register, and if there was no evidence of the likelihood of such knowledge, he cannot be convicted in accordance with due process.” Citing Bryant v. North Carolina, 359 N.C. 554 (2005), a divided Supreme Court overturned the decision. Bryant participated in a Lambert challenge to the state`s failure to register as a sex offender. Bryant was ordered to enroll for life in South Carolina, but when he moved to North Carolina, he did not register, saying he was unaware of the requirement to register in that state. The court dismissed his challenge and concluded that the circumstances of his case were such that a reasonable person in his place could at least inquire about a registration requirement. Presumed knowledge of the law is the jurisprudential principle that one is bound by a law, even if one does not know it. It has also been defined as a “prohibition of ignorance of the law”. An old maxim of the law is ignorantia juris non excusat, or ignorance of the law does not excuse. In other words, it is assumed that the public knows the laws and that a defense of ignorance is generally not allowed. This principle is at the heart of the recent state Supreme Court decision in State v. Miller, ___ N.C.

___, (June 9, 2017). In logic, ignorance is opposed to doubt. Each makes it impossible to confirm or deny either thesis, but ignorance is based on lack of evidence and doubt about the existence of equally strong evidence for each claim. In some jurisdictions, there are exceptions to the general rule that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence. For example, under U.S. criminal tax law, the element of intent required by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code has been classified by the courts as a “wilful and wilful breach of a known legal obligation” when “real faith in good faith based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of tax law” is a valid legal defense. See Cheek v. United States. [12] [13] [14] In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (“ignorance of the law does not excuse”),[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (“ignorance of the law excuses no one”),[2] is a legal principle that states that a person who does not know a law cannot escape responsibility for the violation of that law simply because he does not know its contents.

Eric J. Olson has devoted his career exclusively to criminal law, with an emphasis on DWI defence. Over the past 16 years, Mr. Olson has built a reputation in the legal community as an aggressive and compassionate lawyer for his clients. The rule “ignorance of the law is not an excuse” really means that people cannot defend their actions by pretending that they did not know the law. More recently, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA. The case concerned the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The plaintiff in the case, Karen Jerman, sued a law firm that had mistakenly commenced enforcement proceedings against her property. The law firm acknowledged that it had violated the FDCPA, but that its error was a bona fide error.

An Ohio District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sided with the law firm. The Court of Appeal held that the FDCPA`s plea of error is applicable to errors of law. Generally, it is not a defence to a criminal charge that the defendant did not know the conduct was criminal. This principle has been considered essential for the effective administration of justice and is justified by the practical consideration that, in cases of serious crime, the accused is generally aware of the illegality of the conduct, if not of his criminal responsibility. However, a more dubious question arises in cases of violations of the law involving conduct that is not manifestly dangerous or immoral. An evolving body of law can exonerate error of law in certain such situations, especially if the defendant has made reasonable efforts in good faith to discover what the law is. Ignorance or error of fact is a defence to a criminal charge if the misinterpretation of the facts is incompatible with the required criminal purpose. Thus, someone who takes someone else`s property and takes it away, believing that it is his own, is not guilty of theft because he does not intend to steal. In civil matters, ignorance of the law is generally irrelevant.

An agreement cannot be rejected because the promising party did not know that it was entered into in circumstances that would create a binding contract. On the other hand, ignorance of the facts may exonerate some of its liability or form the basis of recovery, for example if an insurance company pays the insured amount ignoring the fact that the policy has expired. Ignorance of foreign law is, where appropriate, equated with ignorance of the facts.