(a) A person’s ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if it negatives the culpable mental state required for the offense or establishes a mental state sufficient under the law to constitute a defense. (b) A person’s belief that his conduct does not constitute a crime is a defense only if it is reasonable and, (1) if the person’s mistaken belief is due to his ignorance of the existence of the law defining the crime, he exercised all the care which, in the circumstances, a law-abiding and prudent person would exercise to ascertain the law; or (2) if the person’s mistaken belief is due to his misconception of the meaning or application of the law defining the crime to his conduct, (A) he act in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in a statute, judicial decision, administrative order or grant of permission, or an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with the responsibility for interpreting, administering or enforcing the law defining the crime; or
COL 2026-04-23
(B) he otherwise diligently pursues all means available to ascertain the meaning and application of the crime to his conduct and honestly and in good faith concludes his conduct is not a crime in circumstances in which a law-abiding and prudent person would also so conclude. (c) The defendant must prove a defense arising under Subsection (b) by a preponderance of the evidence. SOURCE: Guam PC § 26 (5); M.P.C. § 2.04; *Cal. § 500 (T.D. 2, 1968); Cal. § 560 (1971); Mass. ch. 263 § 19, N.J. § 2C:2-4. COMMENT: This Section codifies the defenses of ignorance or mistake, adding that the mistake or ignorance may be of either fact or of law. However, Subsection (b) proceeds to rather carefully define when the defenses set forth in this Section are and are not permissible. Subsection (c) provides that this defense must be proven by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. Note that Subsection (b)(2)(A) provides the defense that the person charged acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law made by, among other sources, the public officer or body charged by law with the responsibility for interpreting, administering or enforcing it. Thus, in the present state of the law, it would be a defense for a person charged with a crime that he is relying upon a good faith opinion of the Attorney General stating that his actions were not a crime. Likewise, he could rely upon the particular body enforcing the law, such as the Guam Gaming Commission, the Director of Public Health, the Director of Land Management, the Director of Revenue and Taxation, all in their respective spheres of enforcement. Subsection (b) makes applicable this defense only to crimes thereby excluding violations which are subject only to fines. In the case of violations, since fault is dispensed with as a basis of liability it would seem consistent to dispense with absence of fault deriving from the mistake of criminal law as a basis for a defense. The requirement that the defense must be reasonable necessarily precludes the defense of mistake of law in the great majority of cases where the defendant commits an act whose immorality and criminality are obvious. It is only in the new statutory crimes used for regulatory purposes that a jury is likely to find that a mistake as to criminal prohibition is reasonable. Nevertheless, reasonable is not enough. In this area the jury needs more guidance and, therefore, this Section provides as definite a standard as is possible for such a defense.