## Facts

- Maine law prohibited fishing with a dragnet in specified waters under the circumstances at issue.
- Fred Huff intentionally fished with a dragnet in the river area covered by the statute.
- Before fishing, Huff asked a state fisheries commissioner whether the proposed dragnet fishing was lawful; the commissioner advised it was lawful under certain conditions.
- Huff also consulted a reputable attorney, who similarly advised the conduct was lawful.
- At trial, Huff admitted he intended to fish with a dragnet but asserted an honest, good-faith belief that the law permitted his conduct based on these assurances.
- The trial court treated the offense as requiring no culpable mental state as to unlawfulness and convicted Huff.
- Huff sought appellate review by exceptions.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may avoid liability for a statutory prohibition on dragnet fishing by proving good-faith reliance on advice from a fisheries commissioner and an attorney that the conduct was lawful.
2. Whether the offense requires proof that the defendant knew the conduct was unlawful, or only that he intentionally performed the prohibited act.
3. Whether the trial court committed legal error by rejecting the asserted reliance/mistake-of-law defense.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine overruled Huff’s exceptions and left the conviction in place.
- The court held the statute defined the offense by the prohibited act and did not require knowledge or intent regarding illegality.
- The court held that good-faith reliance on erroneous advice from a public official or an attorney did not excuse commission of the prohibited act.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute criminalizes the intentional doing of a prohibited act without making knowledge of illegality an element, the prosecution need only prove the defendant intentionally performed the forbidden conduct.
- Ignorance or mistake of law, even if honest and reasonable, is not a defense to an act-based statutory offense absent a statutory requirement of guilty knowledge.
- Erroneous advice from an administrative official or private counsel cannot authorize conduct the statute forbids or confer immunity from criminal liability.
- Advice-of-counsel evidence is generally relevant only where it negates a required element such as specific intent; it does not defeat liability for a strict, act-defined regulatory offense.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Huff’s conviction because the dragnet-fishing statute required only intentional performance of the prohibited act, and neither good-faith mistake of law nor reliance on advice from a fisheries commissioner and attorney excused the violation.


State v. Huff, 89 Me. 521, 36 A. 1000 (Me. 1897)