Opinion ID: 1270103
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did reliance on the solicitor's advice make possession lawful?

Text: Appellant argues its reliance on expert advice regarding storage of the machines makes its possession of them lawful. We disagree. After this Court's decisions in State v. One Coin-Operated Video Game Machine, 321 S.C. 176, 467 S.E.2d 443 (1996) and State v. Four Video Slot Machines, 317 S.C. 397, 453 S.E.2d 896 (1995), appellant contacted the Solicitor of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit requesting guidance regarding storage of illegal machines. In a memorandum to counsel for appellant and respondents, Solicitor Joseph Watson stated he informed appellant and others he would allow them to conditionally possess the machines as follows: 1. The machines would be warehoused, and not stored in any established business. 2. The computer chips would be removed so that even in storage the machines would not be operable. 3. I placed no time limit on such storage, although it was my understanding that these machines would be retooled to become legal video poker machines in the future. Appellant argues its reliance on the Solicitor's advice makes its possession of the machines lawful. The reliance defense is designed to refute the government's proof that the defendant intended to commit the offense. United States v. Miller, 658 F.2d 235, 237 (4th Cir.1981). Its essential elements are: (a) full disclosure of all pertinent facts to an expert, and (b) good faith reliance on the expert's advice. Id. The reliance defense is inapplicable here. Appellant is not being prosecuted under § 12-21-2710, so its intent is not at issue. Even if appellant were subject to criminal charges for possession of the illegal machines, intent is not an element of the statute. The Solicitor's advice does not make possession of these illegal machines lawful.