## Facts

- Martin M. Miller had a prior felony conviction and knew felons were prohibited from possessing firearms.
- Miller was a longtime hunter who sold his hunting guns after his felony conviction and hunted with a bow until it was stolen.
- Believing muzzle-loading rifles were treated differently under Virginia law (e.g., no background check requirement; separate hunting seasons and licensing), Miller sought to confirm whether he could lawfully possess one.
- Miller consulted multiple government sources, including his probation officer, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.
- According to Miller’s testimony, each source knew he was a felon and affirmatively told him he could have a muzzle-loading rifle.
- Miller bought a muzzle-loading rifle and obtained a hunting license in reliance on those assurances.
- Police found the muzzle-loader during an unrelated search of the residence where Miller lived, and he was charged under Va. Code § 18.2-308.2 (possession of a firearm by a convicted felon).
- At trial, Miller argued the muzzle-loader was not a “firearm” under the statute; the trial court rejected the argument. On appeal, he abandoned that claim, and the appellate court assumed without deciding that the muzzle-loader qualified as a “firearm.”
- Miller instead argued that convicting him violated due process because he relied in good faith on official advice that his conduct was lawful.

## Issues

1. Whether due process prohibits conviction under Va. Code § 18.2-308.2 when a defendant, after diligent inquiry, reasonably relies on affirmative assurances by responsible government officials that the defendant may lawfully possess the item at issue.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed Miller’s conviction and dismissed the charge.
- The court held that, under these facts, the conviction violated due process because Miller was affirmatively misled by government officials after making a good-faith effort to comply with the law.
- The court treated the case as presenting a limited due process bar to prosecution, not a general mistake-of-law defense.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires fair notice that conduct is criminal; punishment may be unconstitutional when the government affirmatively misleads a person about the legality of specific conduct.
- A due process defense applies where the defendant (1) acts in good faith and with reasonable diligence to determine the law, (2) receives affirmative, specific assurances from officials responsible for interpreting, administering, or enforcing the relevant law, and (3) reasonably relies on those assurances.
- The doctrine is distinct from the general rule that mistake of law is no excuse; it depends on affirmative government assurances and reasonable reliance.

## Conclusion

Because Miller made diligent inquiries and reasonably relied on uniform, affirmative assurances from responsible government officials that he could possess a muzzle-loading rifle, due process barred his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, requiring reversal and dismissal.


Miller v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 727, 492 S.E.2d 482 (1997)