Opinion ID: 1984609
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Ineffective-Assistance Claim.

Text: Bellows complains that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to present a defense that Bellows had relied on advice from his Illinois lawyer. His lawyer, he contends, told Bellows the Illinois protective order would have no effect outside the state. Under our law, [a]ll persons are presumed to know the law. Evidence of an accused person's ignorance or mistake as to a matter of either fact or law shall be admissible in any case where it shall tend to prove the existence or nonexistence of some element of the crime with which the person is charged. Iowa Code § 701.6 (emphasis added). It is [o]nly in rare circumstances when the legislature has made knowledge of criminality an element of the offense charged. Saadiq v. State, 387 N.W.2d 315, 323 (Iowa 1986). The lack of subjective awareness that conduct is unlawful is not generally a defense. State v. Clark, 346 N.W.2d 510, 513 (Iowa 1984). Our stalking statute does not contain an element that Bellows stalked Cardwell with the specific intent to violate a protective order. See State v. Buchanan, 549 N.W.2d 291, 294 (Iowa 1996) (noting the term specific intent is used to `designate a special mental element which is required above and beyond any mental state required with respect to the actus reus of the crime') (quoting Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Handbook on Criminal Law § 28, at 192 (1972)). Because section 708.11(3)(b)(1) does not require specific intent to violate the Illinois order, any ignorance or mistake of law was irrelevant. Bellows' counsel had no duty to raise this defense. We find no error in the trial court proceeding. AFFIRMED.