This case comes to us on appeal from questions certified to the Minnesota Court of Appeals from the Dakota County District Court regarding two mistake of law defenses—reliance on advice of counsel and reliance on an official interpretation of the law. Richard Joseph Jacobson was charged with conspiracy to procure unlawful voting and conspiracy to commit forgery. At a pretrial hearing, the state brought a motion seeking to exclude evidence concerning an unrelated election law complaint and the response to that complaint by the Dakota County Attorney’s Office. The district court granted the state’s motion, barred Jacobson from asserting the defenses of reliance on advice of counsel and reliance on an official interpretation of the law, and certified two questions to the court of appeals. The court of appeals held that the defenses of good faith reliance on the advice of counsel and good faith reliance on an official interpretation of the law are “available defenses to a defendant charged with a specific intent crime” and that the district court prematurely concluded that any reliance was unreasonable. The court of appeals further held that Jacobson is entitled to present evidence of his reliance as part of his due process right to present a defense and explain his conduct. We hold that evidence of Jacobson’s mistake of law is admissible because it is relevant to whether he intended to break the law—an element of the conspiracy charges.

Facts

At the time of the events alleged in the complaint, Jacobson was the owner and operator of “Jakes,” a strip club located at 15981 Clayton Avenue in Coates, Minnesota. For several years, Jakes has been the subject of substantial local legal controversy.3 On October 11, 2002, the Dakota County Treasurer-Auditor’s Office reported that it received 93 Minnesota voter registration cards and voter change of address cards listing 15981 Clayton Avenue, Coates, Minnesota—Jakes’

address—as the voters’ place of residence.4 While the registrants signed the voter registration cards certifying that they “maintained residence at the address given on the registration form,” Dakota County property tax records indicate that Jakes is a “bar/tavern” with four bathrooms and no bedrooms....

1. List all of the facts relevant to deciding whether “Jake” Jacobson qualified for the failure of proof defense of mistake of law.

2. State the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision.

3. Summarize the court’s arguments supporting its ruling that Jacobson was entitled to have the jury decide his failure of proof defense.

4. Recall that at the suppression hearing, the state argued that in a mistake of law claim, “there is no legal defense of [reliance on] advice of legal counsel, and that even if the defense of reliance on the advice of legal counsel and reliance on an official interpretation of the law exist as a general matter, the defenses could not be asserted in the instant case because these defenses require a showing that the defendant used due diligence and care.” Which part of the court’s decision is closest to your view? Defend your answer.