People v. Marrero
507 N.E.2d 1068 · 1987
Facts
A federal corrections officer from Danbury, Connecticut, was arrested in a Manhattan social club for possessing a loaded .38 caliber automatic pistol. He claimed he mistakenly believed he was legally entitled to carry the handgun without a permit, asserting his status as a peace officer. He relied on various interpretations from fellow officers, teachers, and his personal reading of the peace officer statute. He believed his conduct was legal due to an interplay of specific statutes.
Procedural history
The defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment was initially granted by a lower court, but this decision was reversed, and the indictment reinstated by the Appellate Division. An appeal from that order to the Court of Appeals lapsed and was dismissed. At trial, the court rejected the defendant's mistake of law argument and refused to charge the jury on the issue, leading to his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The Appellate Division upheld the conviction, and this court affirmed that order.
Issue
Can a defendant, a federal corrections officer, assert a mistake of law defense under Penal Law § 15.20 (2) (a) or (d) when his mistaken belief about carrying a handgun without a permit stems from his personal misinterpretation of a statute?
Holding
No, the defense of mistake of law is not available to the defendant for his personal misinterpretation of the statute. The court affirmed the Appellate Division order upholding his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
Rule
The mistake of law defense under Penal Law § 15.20 is a narrow exception to the common-law rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse. For the defense to apply under § 15.20 (2) (a), the mistaken belief must be founded upon an official statement of the law (a statute) that actually authorized the conduct, and was later found to be erroneous, not merely a defendant's personal misinterpretation. Similarly, under § 15.20 (2) (d), the interpretation must be officially made or issued by a legally empowered public servant or agency. The defense is generally available only where specific intent is an element of the offense or where the government affirmatively, albeit unintentionally, misled an individual. A broader view would foster lawlessness and create legal chaos.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.