People v. Marrero

New York Court of Appeals · 1987 · Criminal Law

69 N.Y.2d 382 (1987)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawmistake of lawignorance of lawofficial statement defensePenal Law § 15.20weapon possessionpeace officer exemptionspecific intent

Facts

Defendant, a Federal corrections officer in Danbury, Connecticut, was arrested in a Manhattan social club in possession of a loaded .38 caliber automatic pistol. He claimed he believed he could lawfully carry the handgun without a permit because he thought the interaction of CPL 2.10, CPL 1.20, and Penal Law § 265.20 made him a peace officer exempt from the permit requirement. At trial, he testified that he relied on various interpretations from fellow officers, teachers, and his own reading of the peace officer statute. The trial court rejected his claim that this personal misunderstanding supported a mistake-of-law defense under Penal Law § 15.20.

Issue

Whether a defendant may invoke New York's mistake-of-law defense when his belief in the legality of his conduct rests on his own reasonable but mistaken interpretation of a statute, or on unofficial interpretations by others, rather than on an official statement or official interpretation that in fact authorized the conduct.

Rule

Under Penal Law § 15.20, mistake of law is not a general defense. A defendant is not relieved of criminal liability because he mistakenly believed his conduct was lawful unless the belief is founded on an official statement or official interpretation of law within the statute's narrow exceptions, and the defense is also recognized where mistake negates a specific-intent element; a defendant's personal misreading of a statute, especially where the statute did not in fact authorize the conduct, does not qualify.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Evan Soto, a private security supervisor in Buffalo, carries a concealed stun device into a courthouse annex. He is charged under a statute banning possession of the device there, but he testifies that after reading the statutory exemptions himself, he concluded that contract security personnel were covered, even though no court or agency had ever said so.

Is Evan entitled to a mistake-of-law instruction based on his reading of the statute?

Explanation. The majority held that Penal Law § 15.20 is a narrow exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse. A defendant’s own reading of a statute, even if asserted to be reasonable, is not enough. The defense is not available where the statute never actually authorized the conduct and the mistake exists only in the defendant’s own understanding.