## Facts

- Harold Ostrosky was convicted in 1979 of fishing without a valid limited entry permit under Alaska’s Limited Entry Act.
- In 1981, a superior court judge declared the Limited Entry Act unconstitutional and vacated the convictions of Ostrosky and his daughters in that case.
- While the State’s appeal of the 1981 ruling was pending, Ostrosky fished without a permit on July 3, 1983; a state trooper confirmed he lacked a permit but did not arrest or stop him.
- On July 7, 1983, the State sought an emergency stay of the 1981 ruling; a single justice granted a stay to permit continued enforcement of the Act pending the supreme court’s merits decision.
- On July 8, 1983, Ostrosky was cited for fishing without a permit (including a citation referencing the July 3 conduct) and for illegal possession of salmon.
- On July 19, 1983, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the superior court and upheld the constitutionality of the Limited Entry Act.
- Ostrosky moved to dismiss the 1983 charges, claiming he was entitled to rely on the 1981 ruling when he fished; the trial court denied the motion.
- At trial, Ostrosky requested instructions on reasonable reliance on a judicial decision and mistake of law; the court refused and convicted him after a bench trial.
- Ostrosky testified he believed his conduct was lawful based on the 1981 ruling and advice from his attorney.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant charged with a fish and game regulatory offense may assert a mistake-of-law defense based on reasonable reliance on an official judicial decision later reversed.
2. Whether the trial court erred by foreclosing that defense as a matter of law and refusing requested instructions addressing reasonable reliance and mistake of law.

## Decision

- The Alaska Court of Appeals reversed Ostrosky’s conviction and remanded.
- The court held the trial court erred in categorically denying the availability of a mistake-of-law defense grounded in reasonable reliance on a judicial decision.
- The court concluded that the pendency of an appeal did not, by itself, eliminate the possibility that reliance on the prior ruling could be reasonable.
- The reasonableness of Ostrosky’s reliance—particularly before entry of the stay—was a factual question that required proper consideration rather than automatic rejection.

## Legal Principles

- As a general matter, ignorance or mistake of law is not a defense, and fish and game violations are commonly treated as strict-liability regulatory offenses.
- A limited exception exists where a defendant reasonably relies on an “official statement of the law” that is later determined to be invalid or erroneous.
- Judicial decisions may qualify as official statements of law for purposes of this exception, including decisions declaring a statute unconstitutional in a case involving the defendant.
- Reliance on private advice of counsel, standing alone, does not establish the defense; attorney advice may bear on whether reliance on an official statement was reasonable.
- The existence and timing of appellate proceedings and any stay are relevant to whether reliance was reasonable, but do not automatically bar the defense.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded because a defendant prosecuted for fishing without a permit may, in limited circumstances, raise a mistake-of-law defense based on reasonable reliance on a judicial decision later reversed, and the trial court improperly foreclosed that defense and refused related instructions.


Ostrosky v. State, 704 P.2d 786 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985)