Gordon v. State
52 Ala. 308 (1875)
Rule of Law:
A person is not guilty of illegal voting if they acted under an honest and reasonable mistake of fact about their qualifications, such as their age, because such a mistake negates the criminal intent required for the offense.
Facts:
- The defendant, Gordon, voted in a general election in Alabama.
- The state charged Gordon with the felony of illegal voting, alleging he was not yet twenty-one years old.
- Gordon's mother testified that he had turned twenty-one in the August preceding the election.
- An acquaintance who had known Gordon his entire life also testified that he had reached the age of twenty-one before the election.
- Both witnesses stated they had informed Gordon before the election that he was of legal age.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Alabama indicted Gordon in the circuit court for the felony of illegal voting.
- The first count of the indictment alleged that Gordon voted while under the age of twenty-one.
- At trial, the court refused to instruct the jury that it could acquit Gordon if it found he honestly believed he was of age when he voted.
- Gordon was convicted.
- Gordon, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the highest court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's honest belief that they are of legal voting age, based on information reasonably obtained from reliable sources, constitute a valid defense to a charge of illegal voting if they are, in fact, underage?
Opinions:
Majority - Brickell, C. J.
Yes. A defendant who votes under an honest and reasonable belief that they are qualified, where that belief is based on a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, lacks the criminal intent necessary for a conviction of illegal voting. The court reasoned that a crime requires the concurrence of a wrongful act and a wrongful intent. While ignorance of the law is not an excuse, ignorance of a material fact, not resulting from carelessness or negligence, can absolve a person of criminal responsibility. The court distinguished between knowledge of the law (e.g., knowing the voting age is 21), which everyone is presumed to have, and knowledge of a particular fact (e.g., one's own precise age), which is derived from external sources like family. If Gordon, after making a reasonable inquiry, acted in good faith on information from his family that he was of age, he cannot be said to possess the criminal intent required for the crime. Therefore, the jury should have been permitted to consider whether he honestly believed he was qualified to vote.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that illegal voting, despite being defined by statute, is not a strict liability offense in Alabama. It reinforces the foundational criminal law principle that mens rea, or a guilty mind, is an essential element of most crimes. The case distinguishes between a mistake of law, which is not a defense, and a mistake of fact, which can be. This precedent protects individuals from felony convictions for honest, non-negligent mistakes about their personal qualifications, thereby preventing the criminalization of voters who make a good-faith effort to comply with election laws.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Gordon v. State (1875)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"