Court
of Appeals of
69
N.Y.2d 382, 515 N.Y.S.2d 212, 507 N.E.2d 1068.
Dressler,
pp. 177-184
Facts: The defendant was a prison
guard in
Issue: Should the defendant have
been convicted even though he was mistaken in regard to the law?
Rule: Mistake in regard to law
may negate intent but it is not a defense to a strict liability crime.
Analysis: The court interprets the
New York Penal Code to include the Model Penal Code treatment of “ignorance or
mistake”. Overall, the court construes
the mistake of law defense narrowly on utilitarian
grounds and cautioning against the slippery-slope policy implications of
allowing a broader version of the defense.
In
a dissenting opinion, Hancock employs retributivist
arguments, along with a smattering of specific deterrence language, to argue
against the majority’s narrow construction of mistake of law. Hancock’s main point is that it is wrong to
punish someone who is not blameworthy.
Hancock alleges that punishing people despite good faith mistake is
tantamount to punishing a law-abiding person.
Hancock
says that the maxim “Ignorance is no excuse” comes from Medieval times when
people were commonly found guilty of crimes without intent. The judge says that over time, retributivism
has become more accepted and utilitarianism less so, such that crimes by and
large now require a guilty mind. Hancock
claims, however, that the maxim has hung around as mere dogma.
Hancock
raises the question of whether the interpretation of the majority went against
the “Rule of Lenity”. Hancock also
claims that the legislature clearly intended the opposite result that the
majority claims.
Conclusion: The verdict was upheld.
Notes
and Questions
1. Kahan makes a
“yeah, but” argument about the utility of learning the law depending upon
whether or not ignorance is an excuse.
2.
3.
4.
5. I guess Weiss
thought maybe reasonably that he was doing what he was doing with
authority of law, and thus one of the elements is cast into doubt. It also sounds like he might have been under
duress, whereas