Opinion ID: 3033784
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mens Rea Defense

Text: Because two other issues presented by the parties in this appeal will likely recur on remand, and because at least the first would provide an independent basis for reversal, we address them here as well. [8] Smith contends that the district court erred in precluding him from offering the alternative defense that he reasonably believed he was a U.S. citizen when he attempted reentry and that he, therefore, did not need the consent of the Attorney General. As we have already explained, GracidasUlibarry, an en banc decision of this court, established that an essential element of the § 1326 offense of attempted illegal reentry is that “the defendant had the purpose, i.e. conscious she attained the age of fourteen. Although the government repeatedly characterizes the U.S. birth certificate of Smith’s mother as “fraudulent” evidence, the validity of the birth certificate has never been litigated and there has never been a legal finding of fraud as to the documents purporting to establish the mother’s citizenship. UNITED STATES v. SMITH-BALTIHER 12889 desire, to reenter the United States without the express consent of the Attorney General.” Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d at 1196. We held in that case that attempted illegal reentry is a specific intent crime. See id. at 1193. If it were not, “any proactive attempt to follow the legally sanctioned procedure for seeking permission to reapply to reenter the United States would actually be [an] illegal ‘attempt’ to reenter.” Id. at 1194 (quotations omitted). In other words, “the reason for requiring specific intent for attempt crimes is to resolve the uncertainty whether the defendant’s purpose was to engage in criminal, rather than innocent, conduct.” Id. at 1193. Relying on Gracidas-Ulibarry, Smith argues that his defense to the specific intent element of the attempt offense is that at the time he applied for reentry, he reasonably believed that he was a U.S. citizen. He contends that his reasonable belief defense was based on a mistake of fact — namely, his mistaken understanding that he was a U.S. citizen. Consequently, he argues, he did not have the requisite specific intent to commit the charged offense. The district court disagreed. It ruled that Smith was precluded from challenging the element of specific intent on the basis of his belief that he did not need permission to enter the U.S., and it refused to permit him to introduce evidence as to that belief. It did so on the ground of collateral estoppel, which we have disposed of supra, and also on the ground that Smith’s belief that he did not need the Attorney General’s permission to enter the U.S. constituted a mistake of law, rather than a mistake of fact. Whether a proffered defense relates to a mistake of law or a mistake of fact is relevant because typically only a mistake of fact provides a defense to a crime of specific intent such as attempted illegal reentry. See id. at 1196 (“The practical difference between these two levels of mental culpability is that certain defenses, such as voluntary intoxication and subjective mistake of fact, can negate culpability only for specific intent crimes.” (emphasis added)). Interestingly, mistake of fact is not a defense to the 12890 UNITED STATES v. SMITH-BALTIHER general intent crime of illegal reentry under § 1326. United States v. Leon-Leon, 35 F.3d 1428, 1432-33 (9th Cir. 1994).9 Although it is axiomatic that ignorance of the law is no defense, Smith’s claim does not fall neatly into the traditional classification of either a mistake of law or a mistake of fact. His alleged mistake is not one of pure fact in the sense that he does not deny that the territory he sought to enter was a part of the United States or assert that he believed he had obtained the Attorney General’s consent to enter. But neither is the mistake one of pure law, as he does not contend that he was ignorant or unaware of the need for aliens to obtain the Attorney General’s permission. Rather, Smith’s alleged mistake relates to the facts relevant to his mother’s citizenship status and the legal effect of her status on his own right to citizenship. Such a defense, if proved, would negate the mens rea element of the § 1326 attempt charge. The type of mistake alleged by Smith may best be characterized as a mixed mistake of fact and law; in any event, the circumstances here require a separate analysis from the traditional mistake of fact or ignorance of the law claim. While we have sometimes called the type of error Smith made a mistake of law and sometimes a mistake of fact, we have generally concluded that, however we formally classify such mistakes, they provide a defense to specific intent crimes involving alienage. In United States v. Fierros, 692 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir. 1982), we spoke of a mistake of law regarding alienage as being in effect a mistake of fact. We explained: There are however, two categories of cases in which 9 All the cases cited by the government to the effect that a defendant charged with violation of § 1326 may not raise his good faith belief that he was a citizen as a defense to the intent element of the charge involve defendants charged with illegally reentering the country, not with “attemp- t(ing)” to reenter. Unlike attempt, which is a specific intent crime, illegal reentry is a crime of general intent. See US. v. Leon-Leon, 35 F.3d at 1428. UNITED STATES v. SMITH-BALTIHER 12891 a defense of ignorance of law is permitted even though it is not specifically written into the criminal statute. . . . The first category involves instances where the defendant is ignorant of an independently determined legal status or condition that is one of the operative facts of the crime. An example is United States v. Petersen, [513 F.2d 1133 (9th Cir. 1975)] . . . . In that case defendant was charged with embezzlement or theft of federal property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, a crime requiring proof of specific intent. We held there that Petersen was entitled to an instruction on his defense that he reasonably believed that the person from whom he bought the property was legally authorized to sell it. In such a case, the mistake of the law is for practical pur- poses a mistake of fact. See also United States v. Barker, 546 F.2d 940, 946-54 (D.C. Cir. 1976); United States v. Currier, 621 F.2d 7, 9 n.1 (1st Cir. 1980) (citing United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 612 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring)). This type of defense would have been available to appellants in this case if, for example, they had asserted reasonable grounds to believe that the workers were not aliens or that they had been legally admitted to the United States. Fierros, 692 F.2d at 1294 (emphasis added). In United States v. Aguilar, 883 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1989), superseded on other grounds, United States v. Gonzalez-Torres, 309 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 2003), we also categorized a mistake as to alienage as a mistake of fact, concluding that such a mistake negates the specific intent required for culpability. We stated that the defense, would have been available to appellants in this case if, for example, they had asserted reasonable grounds to believe that the workers were not aliens or that they had been legally admitted to the United States. 12892 UNITED STATES v. SMITH-BALTIHER [Fierros, 692 F.2d at 1294]. Significantly, these illustrations depict defendant’s understanding of the factual events that formed the basis for prosecution. If the facts were as defendant supposed, he would not have the requisite culpability prescribed by the statute. Aguilar, 883 F.2d at 675 (quotations omitted) (emphasis in original). [9] Smith’s defense is that he thought he was a citizen and therefore did not need the Attorney General’s permission before attempting reentry. In fact, assuming that his belief was reasonable, this case presents the very type of circumstance — where a defendant attempted to follow a lawful process in reentering and is subsequently prosecuted for an illegal ‘attempt’ to reenter — we sought to exclude in Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d at 1194 (quoted supra). Assuming that Smith could have shown both (1) facts justifying his reliance on his belief that he did not need the Attorney General’s permission and (2) a legal theory on which to base a reasonable belief that he was a citizen (i.e., derivative citizenship), he was entitled to offer a defense of mistake of fact. Thus, it was error to exclude the defense and to prevent him from offering evidence to establish it. The government argues that even if Smith was entitled to present evidence of a defense of reasonable belief, he would not be entitled to a reversal of his conviction on that ground for several reasons. However, because we are reversing the conviction on the issue of alienage, it is unnecessary for us to determine the effect of the district court’s error with respect to Smith’s reasonable belief defense. Upon remand, should he be tried again, Smith is entitled to present evidence supporting that defense as well as his defense that he is a derivative citizen. UNITED STATES v. SMITH-BALTIHER 12893