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). It is important to note that ignorance of the law only works as a defence in certain circumstances. In most cases, this will not be an enforceable defense, as most crimes do not require an accused to know that their conduct is against the law. However, in circumstances where a crime requires a deliberate violation, the defence may be available. If you have been charged with a felony and think ignorance of the law could be a defense, contact Olson Defense`s attorneys at 952-835-1088 for a free consultation. Another exception is the United States. The Supreme Court dismissed the Tax Code for disregarding the law.
In Cheek v. United States in 1991, the Court stated: “The general rule that ignorance of the law or an error of law is not a defence to prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system. The proliferation of laws and regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the average citizen to know and understand the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by tax laws. Congress has thus mitigated the effects of the common law presumption by making the specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal tax offenses. Thus, nearly 60 years ago, the Court interpreted the legal term “intentionally,” as used in federal criminal tax laws, as an exception to the traditional rule. This special treatment of tax crimes is largely due to the complexity of tax laws. There is an important legal principle that “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. 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] Discussion Questions 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. While ignorance of the law, like other errors of law, is not a defence, an error of fact may very well be, depending on the circumstances, that is, a false but sincere belief in a factual fact that, had it been the case, would have rendered the conduct legally innocent. 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.
In criminal law, ignorance, while not absolving a defendant of guilt, may be taken into consideration in sentencing, especially if the law is unclear or if the defendant has sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory authorities. For example, in a Canadian case, an individual was charged with being in possession of gaming machines after being informed by customs officers that it was legal to import such machines into Canada. [4] Although the accused was found guilty, the verdict was an absolute exoneration. While “ignorance of the law” is no excuse, Basciano says that in some cases it can be a mitigating circumstance when considering a conviction in a criminal case or reduced damages in a civil proceeding. However, the Court of Appeal found that Miller`s failure to inform it that his conduct was unlawful constituted a breach of due process under Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957). Lambert is a landmark case on the fair termination requirement under the due process clause. The Lambert court overturned an order requiring offenders to register with the Los Angeles Police Department within five days of arriving in Los Angeles.