## Facts

- Sally Mistook (defendant) was a first-year law student enrolled in Professor Earnest’s Criminal Law course.
- At about 6:45 p.m. on a Monday, Mistook was found in a law-school stairwell holding a folder that contained a draft of the Criminal Law final examination.
- The draft exam folder had been left in Professor Earnest’s office at the law school.
- Police went to Mistook’s home and observed two children playing with a full-size, empty refrigerator on the street outside her home.
- The refrigerator had Mistook’s name on it.
- The State (plaintiff) charged Mistook with burglary, trespass, and leaving an abandoned refrigerator accessible to children.
- At trial, Professor Earnest testified she left two folders on a table just inside the door to her office: one containing a class roster and lecture notes, and one containing the draft final exam.
- Earnest testified she left the law school shortly after 6:30 p.m.
- Mistook testified she intended to take the folder containing the class roster information because she dreaded being called on in the next class.
- Mistook testified that, before acting, she consulted another law student, Harry Hellpar, who told her the plan was not illegal.
- Mistook testified she did not enter Earnest’s office; she reached inside and grabbed the wrong folder.
- Mistook requested jury instructions on mistake of law based on her claimed reliance on Hellpar’s statement.
- The trial court denied the requested mistake-of-law instructions.
- The jury convicted Mistook, and she appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Mistook was entitled to a mistake-of-law jury instruction based on her claimed reliance on another law student’s assurance that her planned conduct was not illegal.
2. Whether Mistook’s asserted belief about legality, formed from Hellpar’s advice, could negate any mental-state element of the charged offenses (burglary, trespass, and leaving an abandoned refrigerator accessible to children).

## Decision

- The trial court denied Mistook’s request for mistake-of-law jury instructions.
- The jury convicted Mistook of burglary, trespass, and leaving an abandoned refrigerator accessible to children.
- Mistook appealed from the convictions, challenging the refusal to instruct the jury on mistake of law.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a requested jury instruction only when the instruction states a legally recognized theory of defense and there is evidence in the record to support giving it.
- Mistake of law is generally not a defense to criminal liability; recognized exceptions, where they exist, are typically limited and often depend on reliance on an official statement or authoritative interpretation of law.
- Reliance on informal legal advice from a private person (such as another student) is commonly treated as insufficient, by itself, to establish a mistake-of-law defense.
- When analyzing burglary and trespass, courts distinguish between (a) mistakes about facts that may bear on intent and (b) beliefs about what the law allows; the latter generally does not excuse otherwise prohibited conduct.

## Conclusion

People v. Sally Mistook, 2 Imagination Cases 10 (2004) involves a first-year law student caught with a folder containing a draft Criminal Law final exam and separately linked to an abandoned refrigerator accessible to children; after being charged and convicted of burglary, trespass, and a child-safety offense, Mistook argued she meant to take a different folder, relied on a classmate’s assurance that the plan was lawful, and sought a mistake-of-law jury instruction that the trial court refused, leading to her appeal.
