## Facts

- Gaylord Duane Fridley’s driver’s license had been revoked by the North Dakota Driver’s License Division after administrative proceedings on the revocation.
- On April 1, 1982, Fridley was stopped for speeding in Dickinson, North Dakota, by two auxiliary police officers.
- During the stop, officers ran a routine license check and learned Fridley’s license was revoked.
- Fridley was arrested and cited for driving while his license was revoked in violation of N.D. Cent. Code § 39-06-42, a Class B misdemeanor.
- Fridley demanded a jury trial in Stark County Court of Increased Jurisdiction.
- Before trial, the State filed a motion in limine seeking to bar evidence about Fridley’s contacts with the Driver’s License Division after notice of the revocation decision, anticipating a defense based on confusion or mistake of law.
- At a hearing on the motion, Fridley made an offer of proof about a phone call with a Driver’s License Division employee named “Debbie.”
- Fridley testified that Debbie told him he needed to take a driver’s test and submit paperwork and payment to obtain a work permit, and that he would be without a license for seven days while the paperwork was processed.
- Fridley claimed he took Debbie’s statements to mean he could drive during the processing period.
- Fridley sought to admit this evidence and to obtain a jury instruction on “excuse” based on mistake of law under N.D. Cent. Code §§ 12.1-05-08 and 12.1-05-09.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion in limine, excluding the proffered testimony as hearsay and finding it was not an official statement or interpretation of the criminal law.
- The trial court also refused Fridley’s requested mistake-of-law jury instruction.
- The jury convicted Fridley of driving while his license was revoked, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by granting the State’s motion in limine and excluding Fridley’s testimony about his telephone conversation with a Driver’s License Division employee offered to support a mistake-of-law excuse?
2. Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on excuse based on mistake of law under N.D. Cent. Code §§ 12.1-05-08 and 12.1-05-09 in a prosecution for driving while license revoked under N.D. Cent. Code § 39-06-42?

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held that driving while one’s license is revoked under N.D. Cent. Code § 39-06-42 is a strict-liability offense and does not require proof of a culpable mental state.
- Because the offense is strict liability, Fridley’s claimed misunderstanding about whether he could drive while seeking a work permit did not provide a legally available excuse under the mistake-of-law statutes.
- The court agreed that the statements attributed to the Driver’s License Division employee were not an “official statement” or “official interpretation” of the criminal statute within the meaning of N.D. Cent. Code §§ 12.1-05-08 and 12.1-05-09.
- The court upheld the exclusion of the telephone-conversation evidence and the refusal to give a mistake-of-law instruction.

## Legal Principles

- Driving while license revoked under N.D. Cent. Code § 39-06-42 is treated as a strict-liability offense; the State is not required to prove intent, knowledge, or other mens rea.
- North Dakota’s mistake-of-law excuse is limited: it applies only in defined circumstances, including reasonable reliance on an official statement or interpretation of the law made by a public officer or body authorized to interpret, administer, or enforce the law.
- Informal advice from an agency employee about administrative steps (such as how to apply for a work permit) is not an official construction of the criminal statute defining the offense.
- A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on a defense that is not legally available for the charged offense or that lacks a sufficient evidentiary foundation.
- Trial courts may exclude out-of-court statements offered for their truth as hearsay when no exception applies, and may also exclude evidence that would not establish a valid statutory defense even if admitted.

## Conclusion

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Fridley’s conviction for driving while his license was revoked, holding that the offense is strict liability and that Fridley could not rely on a mistake-of-law excuse based on a Driver’s License Division employee’s informal telephone comments; the trial court therefore properly excluded the proffered testimony and refused the requested jury instruction.


State v. Fridley, 335 N.W.2d 785 (1983)