Scribd
Upload
205 views1 page

(CRIMLAW) People vs. Marrero

Julio Marrero, a federal corrections officer, was arrested for possession of a loaded handgun in Manhattan without a permit. He claimed his belief that he could legally carry the gun was based on discussions with fellow officers and his interpretation of statutes regarding a peace officer's authority. However, the court affirmed his conviction, finding that a personal misunderstanding or misreading of the law does not constitute a valid mistake of law defense. New York law states that ignorance or mistake of the law is not a defense unless the mistaken belief was based on an official statement of the law by a legally authorized body.

Uploaded by

Aquino, JP
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
205 views1 page

(CRIMLAW) People vs. Marrero

Julio Marrero, a federal corrections officer, was arrested for possession of a loaded handgun in Manhattan without a permit. He claimed his belief that he could legally carry the gun was based on discussions with fellow officers and his interpretation of statutes regarding a peace officer's authority. However, the court affirmed his conviction, finding that a personal misunderstanding or misreading of the law does not constitute a valid mistake of law defense. New York law states that ignorance or mistake of the law is not a defense unless the mistaken belief was based on an official statement of the law by a legally authorized body.

Uploaded by

Aquino, JP
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People vs.

Marrero 69 NY 2d 382 Ponente: BELLACOSA, J Topic: Mistake of Law Ignorance or mistake not valid defense

FACTS: Julio Marrero, a Federal Corrections officer from Danbury, Connecticut, was arrested in a Manhattan social club for possession a loaded .38 caliber automatic pistol. Defendant asserts that his mistaken belief was based on the interplay of CPL 2.10, 1.20, and Penal law 265.20, to carry a handgun without a permit as a peace officer. He claims that there were various interpretations by fellow officers, teachers, as well as the peace officer statute itself, upon which he relied on for his mistake. He argues that his mistake is reasonable, in view of ambiguous wording. Marrero was successful in a pretrial motion to dismiss, however, the Appelate Division reinstated the indictment, noting that he does not fall under the category of peace officer. Defendants appeal to the court was dismissed, and trial court rejected defendants efforts to establish mistake of law before the jury, after the trial court rejected his efforts to establish a defense of mistake of law. ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants personal misreading or misunderstanding of the statute may excuse criminal conduct in the case. HELD: Conviction Affirmed. As in Gardner vs. People, the "mistake of law" did not relieve the defendants of criminal liability. The mistake of law defense "`would encourage ignorance where knowledge is socially desired. NY Penal Law 15.20 Effect of ignorance or mistake upon liability states that: "2. A person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief that it does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense, unless such mistaken belief is founded upon an official statement of the law contained in (a) a statute or other enactment * * * (d) an interpretation of the statute or law relating to the offense, officially made or issued by a public servant, agency, or body legally charged or empowered with the responsibility 387*387 or privilege of administering, enforcing or interpreting such statute or law." One cannot claim the protection of mistake of law under section 15.20 (2) (a) simply by misconstruing the meaning of a statute but must instead establish that the statute relied on actually permitted the conduct in question and was only later found to be erroneous.

You might also like