Kipp v. Delaware
704 A.2d 839 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mistake of law defense is valid, though generally disfavored, when a defendant is affirmatively misled by an official statement of law from a public official or document, causing the defendant to erroneously but in good faith believe their conduct is not criminal.
Facts:
- In 1990, Hugh A. Kipp, Jr. pleaded guilty to Assault in the Third Degree, a misdemeanor crime of violence.
- The official guilty plea form Kipp signed in 1990 contained a provision regarding the loss of the right to possess deadly weapons, which was marked 'N/A' (not applicable).
- Kipp testified he was told the prohibition did not apply to him because he was pleading to a misdemeanor.
- The prosecutor and judge who accepted the 1990 plea did not correct the 'N/A' notation on the form or otherwise inform Kipp that he would be prohibited from possessing deadly weapons.
- On September 17, 1995, within the five-year prohibition period for his misdemeanor conviction, police investigated a complaint at Kipp's home.
- During a search of the home, police discovered Kipp was in possession of a handgun and two shotguns.
Procedural Posture:
- Hugh A. Kipp, Jr. was charged in the Superior Court with five counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Person Prohibited, as well as other charges which were later dismissed.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial in the Superior Court.
- During the trial, the judge dismissed two of the five counts, concluding that the hunting bows in question were not 'deadly weapons' under the statute.
- The Superior Court found Kipp guilty on the remaining three counts for possessing firearms.
- Kipp, as the appellant, appealed his convictions to the Supreme Court of Delaware, the highest court in the state.
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 have a valid mistake of law defense to a charge of possessing a weapon as a prohibited person when an official guilty plea form from a prior conviction, uncorrected by the prosecutor or judge, stated that the weapons prohibition was not applicable to him?
Opinions:
Majority - Holland, Justice
Yes. A defendant presents a valid mistake of law defense when they are misled by information received from the State. Although ignorance of the law is generally not an excuse, a narrow exception exists based on principles of fundamental fairness. The court found that Kipp's 1990 guilty plea for assault was valid, as the loss of firearm rights is a collateral consequence of a plea, and a judge is not required to inform a defendant of it. However, the court held that Kipp's subsequent conviction for possessing a firearm as a prohibited person must be reversed. By relying on the official guilty plea document—which was memorialized with the 'N/A' notation and presented to and left uncorrected by both the prosecutor and the judge—Kipp had made a 'bona fide, diligent effort' under the test from Long v. State to ascertain and abide by the law. Because Kipp was actively misled by the State, he established a complete mistake of law defense.
Analysis:
This case solidifies and applies a narrow but significant exception to the maxim that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.' It establishes that a defendant can assert a mistake of law defense, sometimes known as entrapment by estoppel, when they have been affirmatively misled by an official source, such as a court document or public official. The decision emphasizes fundamental fairness, preventing the state from prosecuting an individual for conduct the state itself represented as lawful. This precedent serves as a check on the government, requiring clarity and accuracy in its administration of justice and protecting individuals who make good-faith efforts to comply with the law based on official guidance.
Unlock the full brief for Kipp v. Delaware