Lambert v. California: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
m (1 revision: Batch upload of Criminal Law case briefs.) |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|citation=355 U.S. 225 (1957) | |||
|date=1957 | |||
|subject=Criminal Law | |||
|facts=The L.A. municipal code said that anybody convicted of a felony entered the city for a period of more than five days, or any felon that entered the city more than five times in a thirty-day period must register with the chief of police. Lambert entered the city without registering and was arrested on an unrelated charge. | |||
|procedural_history=D was found guilty of not registering. Fined $250 and placed on probation for 3 years. | |||
|issues=Can a mistake of law defense be valid if the charge is an omission? | |||
|holding=Yes, it can. | |||
|judgment=Reversed. | |||
|reasons=Lack of notice. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/355/225/case.html | |||
|case_text_source=Justia | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
Latest revision as of 03:40, July 14, 2023
| Lambert v. California | |
| Court | |
|---|---|
| Citation | 355 U.S. 225 (1957) |
| Date decided | 1957 |
Facts
The L.A. municipal code said that anybody convicted of a felony entered the city for a period of more than five days, or any felon that entered the city more than five times in a thirty-day period must register with the chief of police. Lambert entered the city without registering and was arrested on an unrelated charge.
Procedural History
D was found guilty of not registering. Fined $250 and placed on probation for 3 years.
Issues
Can a mistake of law defense be valid if the charge is an omission?
Holding
Yes, it can.
Judgment
Reversed.
Reasons
Lack of notice.
