California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM 2023)
3411. Mistake of Law As a Defense
[I have already explained that it is not a defense to the crime[s] of ___________ <insert crime[s]> that the defendant did not know (he/she) was breaking the law or that (he/she) believed (his/her) act was lawful. But when you consider the crime[s] of ___________ <insert crime[s]>, a different rule applies.]
___________ <insert crime[s]> require[s] that a defendant act with a specific (intent/ [and/or] mental state). The act and the specific (intent/ [and/or] mental state) required are explained in the instruction for (that/ those) crime[s].
The defendant is not guilty of ___________ <insert crime[s]> if (he/she) made an honest or good faith mistake about the law, if that mistake shows that (he/she) did not have the specific (intent/ [and/or] mental state) required for the crime[s] of ___________ <insert crime[s]>.
If you have a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant had the specific (intent/ [and/or] mental state) required for ___________ <insert crime[s]>, you must find (him/her) not guilty of (that/those) crime[s].
New August 2013; Revised October 2021
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction if a defendant charged with a specific intent crime is appropriately relying on this defense or there is substantial evidence that a defendant’s good faith mistake of law provides a valid defense to a specific intent crime and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case. (People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 747, 774–780 [33 Cal.Rptr.3d 859]).
Many defendants seek to rely on the defense of mistake of law, but few are successful, because it is limited to crimes in which a specific intent or mental state is negated by the mistake. (People v. Koenig (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 771, 809 [272 Cal.Rptr.3d 732] [instruction appropriate where defendant relied on advice of counsel to establish mistake of law related to omission of material fact in sale of security]; People v. Cole (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 452, 483–484 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 526] [no error in instructing jury that mistake of law is no defense when defendant was charged with a general intent crime]; People v. Vineberg (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 127, 137 [177 Cal.Rptr. 819] [defendants’ belief that they had a legal right to use clients’ gold reserves to buy future contracts could be a defense if held in good faith]; People v. Stewart (1976) 16 Cal.3d 133, 140 [127 Cal.Rptr. 117, 544 P.2d 1317] [defendant’s good faith belief that he was legally authorized to use property could be defense to embezzlement]; People v. Flora (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 662, 669–670 [279 Cal.Rptr. 17] [defendant’s belief, if held in good faith, that out-of- state custody order was not enforceable in California could have been basis for defense to violating a child custody order]).
Although concerned with knowledge of the law, a mistake about legal status or rights is a mistake of fact, not a mistake of law. (See CALCRIM No. 3406, Mistake of Fact.) If the defendant is charged with a general intent crime and raises a mistake of law defense, give instead CALCRIM No. 3407, Defenses: Mistake of Law. If both general and specific intent crimes are charged, use the bracketed first paragraph of this instruction as necessary.