State v. Shane, Minn.Ct.App., 7/5/2016. The state charged Mr. Shane with damaging, defacing or mutilating a ballot, which is apparently a crime. Minn.Stat. 204C.06, subd. 4(b). He wanted the trial judge to instruct the jury on the defenses of mistake of law and reliance on an official government statement. The trial judge concluded that the crime was a general intent crime and that the two defenses were only available to specific intent crimes.
Mr. Shane is or was an elected "township supervisor" for Wanamingo, Minnesota. Following an election at a township meeting to elect another township supervision the suggestion was made to burn the ballots. Mr. Shane volunteered to light the match, which apparently is in violation of a law that requires that ballots for such elections needed to be preserved for some amount of time. During another meeting there was conflicting advice given about whether the ballots could be destroyed. When Mr. Shane did destroy them the state charged him with ballot mutilation.
The court of appeals concludes that the defense of mistake of law was not available to Mr. Shane. However, the reliance instruction should have been given even for a general intent crime. However, because Mr. Shane actually got conflicting advice about the legality of destroying the ballot no reasonable jury could have concluded that he acted in reliance on advice of an official government source.
No comments:
Post a Comment