Lambert v. California: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=1957 | |date=1957 | ||
|subject=Criminal Law | |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. | |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. | |procedural_history=D was found guilty of not registering. Fined $250 and placed on probation for 3 years. |
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.