Lambert v. California: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''Lambert v. California'', 355 U.S. 225 (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. | '''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. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 12: | ||
'''Judgment''': Reversed | '''Judgment''': Reversed | ||
==External Links== | |||
* [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/355/225/case.html Full text] on Justia.com | |||
[[Category:Cases:Criminal Law]] | [[Category:Cases:Criminal Law]] | ||
Revision as of 22:27, September 15, 2017
Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (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.
Issue: Can a mistake of law defense be valid if the charge is an omission?
Holding: Yes, it can
Reasons: lack of notice
Judgment: Reversed
External Links
- Full text on Justia.com
