*226MR. Justice Douglas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 52.38 (a) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code defines “convicted person” as follows:

“Any person who, subsequent to January 1, 1921, has been or hereafter is convicted of an offense punishable as a felony in the State of California, or who has been or who is hereafter convicted of any offense in any place other than the State of California, which offense, if committed in the State of California, would have been punishable as a felony.”

Section 52.39 provides that it shall be unlawful for “any convicted person” to be or remain in Los Angeles for a period of more than five days without registering; it requires any person having a place of abode outside the city to register if he comes into the city on five occasions or more during a 30-day period; and it prescribes the information to be furnished the Chief of Police on registering.

Section 52.43 (b) makes the failure to register a continuing offense, each day’s failure constituting a separate offense.

Appellant, arrested on suspicion of another offense, was charged with a violation of this registration law.* The evidence showed that she had been at the time of her arrest a resident of Los Angeles for over seven years. Within that period she had been convicted in Los Angeles of the crime of forgery, an offense which California punishes as a felony. Though convicted of a crime punishable as a felony, she had not at the time of her arrest registered under the Municipal Code. At the trial, appel*227lant asserted that § 52.39 of the Code denies her due process of law and other rights under the Federal Constitution, unnecessary to enumerate. The trial court denied this objection. The case was tried to a jury which found appellant guilty. The court fined her $250 and placed her on probation for three years. Appellant, renewing her constitutional objection, moved for arrest of judgment and a new trial. This motion was denied. On appeal the constitutionality of the Code was again challenged. The Appellate Department of the Superior Court affirmed the judgment, holding there was no merit to the claim that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The case is here on appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). We noted probable jurisdiction, 352 U. S. 914, and designated amicus curiae to appear in support of appellant. The case having been argued and reargued, we now hold that the registration provisions of the Code as sought to be applied here violate the Due Process requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The registration provision, carrying criminal penalties, applies if a person has been convicted “of an offense punishable as a felony in the State of California” or, in case he has been convicted in another State, if the offense “would have been punishable as a felony” had it been committed in California. No element of willfulness is by terms included in the ordinance nor read into it by the California court as a condition necessary for a conviction.

We must assume that appellant had no actual knowledge of the requirement that she register under this ordinance, as she offered proof of this defense which was refused. The question is whether a registration act of this character violates due process where it is applied to a person who has no actual knowledge of his duty to register, and where no showing is made of the probability of such knowledge.

*228We do not go with Blackstone in saying that “a vicious will” is necessary to constitute a crime, 4 Bl. Comm. *21, for conduct alone without regard to the intent of the doer is often sufficient. There is wide latitude in the lawmakers to declare an offense and to exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition. See Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 559, 578. But we deal here with conduct that is wholly passive — mere failure to register. It is unlike the commission of acts, or the failure to act under circumstances that should alert the doer to the consequences of his deed. Cf. Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, 218 U. S. 57; United States v. Balint, 258 U. S. 250; United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277, 284. The rule that “ignorance of the law will not excuse” (Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, supra, p. 68) is deep in our law, as is the principle that of all the powers of local government, the police power is “one of the least limitable.” District of Columbia v. Brooke, 214 U. S. 138, 149. On the other hand, due process places some limits on its exercise. Engrained in our concept of due process is the requirement of notice. Notice is sometimes essential so that the citizen has the chance to defend charges. Notice is required before property interests are disturbed, before assessments are made, before penalties are assessed. Notice is required in a myriad of situations where a penalty or forfeiture might be suffered for mere failure to act. Recent cases illustrating the point are Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306; Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U. S. 141; Walker v. Hutchinson City, 352 U. S. 112. These cases involved only property interests in civil litigation. But the principle is equally appropriate where a person, wholly passive and unaware of any wrongdoing, is brought to the bar of justice for condemnation in a criminal case.

*229Registration laws are common and their range is wide. Cf. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U. S. 63; United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612; United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22. Many such laws are akin to licensing statutes in that they pertain to the regulation of business activities. But the present ordinance is entirely different. Violation of its provisions is unaccompanied by any activity whatever, mere presence in the city being the test. Moreover, circumstances which might move one to inquire as to the necessity of registration are completely lacking. At most the ordinance is but a law enforcement technique designed for the convenience of law enforcement agencies through which a list of the names and addresses of felons then residing in a given community is compiled. The disclosure is merely a compilation of former convictions already publicly recorded in the jurisdiction where obtained. Nevertheless, this appellant on first becoming aware of her duty to register was given no opportunity to comply with the law and avoid its penalty, even though her default was entirely innocent. She could but suffer the consequences of the ordinance, namely, conviction with the imposition of heavy criminal penalties thereunder. We believe that actual knowledge of the duty to register or proof of the probability of such knowledge and subsequent failure to comply are necessary before a conviction under the ordinance can stand. As Holmes wrote in The Common Law, “A law which punished conduct which would not be blameworthy in the average member of the community would be too severe for that community to bear.” Id., at 50. Its severity lies in the absence of an opportunity either to avoid the consequences of the law or to defend any prosecution brought under it. Where a person did not know of the duty to register and where there was no proof of the probability of such knowledge, he may not be convicted consistently *230with due process. Were it otherwise, the evil would be as great as it is when the law is written in print too fine to read or in a language foreign to the community.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Burton dissents because he believes that, as applied to this appellant, the ordinance does not violate her constitutional rights.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter,

whom Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Whittaker join,

dissenting.

The present laws of the United States and of the forty-eight States are thick with provisions that command that some things not be done and others be done, although persons convicted under such provisions may have had no awareness of what the law required or that what they did was wrongdoing. The body of decisions sustaining such legislation, including innumerable registration laws, is almost as voluminous as the legislation itself. The matter is summarized in United States v. Balint, 258 U. S. 250, 252: “Many instances of this are to be found in regulatory measures in the exercise of what is called the police power where the emphasis of the statute is evidently upon achievement of some social betterment rather than the punishment of the crimes as in cases of mala in se.”

Surely there can hardly be a difference as a matter of fairness, of hardship, or of justice, if one may invoke it, between the case of a person wholly innocent of wrongdoing, in the sense that he was not remotely conscious of violating any law, who is imprisoned for five years for conduct relating to narcotics, and the case of another person who is placed on probation for three years on condition that she pay $250, for failure, as a local resident, convicted under local law of a felony, to register under *231a law passed as an exercise of the State’s “police power.” * Considerations of hardship often lead courts, naturally enough, to attribute to a statute the requirement of a certain mental element — some consciousness of wrongdoing and knowledge of the law’s command — as a matter of statutory construction. Then, too, a cruelly disproportionate relation between what the law requires and the sanction for its disobedience may constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment as a cruel and unusual punishment, and, in respect to the States, even offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

But what the Court here does is to draw a constitutional line between a State’s requirement of doing and not doing. What is this but a return to Year Book distinctions between feasance and nonfeasance — a distinction that may have significance in the evolution of common-law notions of liability, but is inadmissible as a line between constitutionality and unconstitutionality. One can be confident that Mr. Justice Holmes would have been the last to draw such a line. What he wrote about “blameworthiness” is worth quoting in its context:

“It is not intended to deny that criminal liability, as well as civil, is founded on blameworthiness. Such a denial would shock the moral sense of any civilized community; or, to put it another way, a law which punished conduct which would not be blameworthy in the average member of the community would be too severe for that community to bear.” (This pas*232sage must be read in the setting of the broader discussion of which it is an essential part. Holmes, The Common Law, at 49-50.)

If the generalization that underlies, and alone can justify, this decision were to be given its relevant scope, a whole volume of the United States Reports would be required to document in detail the legislation in this country that would fall or be impaired. I abstain from entering upon a consideration of such legislation, and adjudications upon it, because I feel confident that the present decision will turn out to be an isolated deviation from the strong current of precedents — a derelict on the waters of the law. Accordingly, I content myself with dissenting.

Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Title 26, §7201 of the United States Code provides that any person “who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof” shall be guilty of a felony. Under 26 U. S. C. § 7203, “[a]ny person required under this title ... or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return . . . who willfully fails to . . . make such return” shall be guilty of a misde*194meanor. This case turns on the meaning of the word “willfully” as used in §§7201 and 7203.

I

Petitioner John L. Cheek has been a pilot for American Airlines since 1973. He filed federal income tax returns through 1979 but thereafter ceased to file returns.1 He also claimed an increasing number of withholding allowances — eventually claiming 60 allowances by mid-1980 — and for the years 1981 to 1984 indicated on his W-4 forms that he was exempt from federal income taxes. In 1983, petitioner unsuccessfully sought a refund of all tax withheld by his employer in 1982. Petitioner’s income during this period at all times far exceeded the minimum necessary to trigger the statutory filing requirement.

As a result of his activities, petitioner was indicted for 10 violations of federal law. He was charged with six counts of willfully failing to file a federal income tax return for the years 1980, 1981, and 1983 through 1986, in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 7203. He was further charged with three counts of willfully attempting to evade his income taxes for the years 1980, 1981, and 1983 in violation of §7201. In those years, American Airlines withheld substantially less than the amount of tax petitioner owed because of the numerous allowances and exempt status he claimed on his W-4 forms.2 The tax offenses with which petitioner was charged are specific intent crimes that require the defendant to have acted willfully.

At trial, the evidence established that between 1982 and 1986, petitioner was involved in at least four civil cases that *195challenged various aspects of the federal income tax system.3 In all four of those cases, the plaintiffs were informed by the courts that many of their arguments, including that they were not taxpayers within the meaning of the tax laws, that wages are not income, that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize the imposition of an income tax on individuals, and that the Sixteenth Amendment is unenforceable, were frivolous or had been repeatedly rejected by the courts. During this time period, petitioner also attended at least two criminal trials of persons charged with tax offenses. In addition, there was evidence that in 1980 or 1981 an attorney had advised Cheek that the courts had rejected as frivolous the claim that wages are not income.4

Cheek represented himself at trial and testified in his defense. He admitted that he had not filed personal income tax returns during the years in question. He testified that as early as 1978, he had begun attending seminars sponsored *196by, and following the advice of, a group that believes, among other things, that the federal tax system is unconstitutional. Some of the speakers at these meetings were lawyers who purported to give professional opinions about the invalidity of the federal income tax laws. Cheek produced a letter from an attorney stating that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize a tax on wages and salaries but only on gain or profit. Petitioner’s defense was that, based on the indoctrination he received from this group and from his own study, he sincerely believed that the tax laws were being unconstitutionally enforced and that his actions during the 1980-1986 period were lawful. He therefore argued that he had acted without the willfulness required for conviction of the various offenses with which he was charged.

In the course of its instructions, the trial court advised the jury that to prove “willfulness” the Government must prove the voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty, a burden that could not be proved by showing mistake, ignorance, or negligence. The court further advised the jury that an objectively reasonable good-faith misunderstanding of the law would negate willfulness, but mere disagreement with the law would not. The court described Cheek’s beliefs about the income tax system5 and instructed the jury that if it found that Cheek “honestly and reasonably believed that *197he was not required to pay income taxes or to file tax returns,” App. 81, a not guilty verdict should be returned.

After several hours of deliberation, the jury sent a note to the judge that stated in part:

“ ‘We have a basic disagreement between some of us as to if Mr. Cheek honestly & reasonably believed that he was not required to pay income taxes.

“ ‘Page 32 [the relevant jury instruction] discusses good faith misunderstanding & disagreement. Is there any additional clarification you can give us on this point?’” Id., at 85.

The District Judge responded with a supplemental instruction containing the following statements:

“[A] person’s opinion that the tax laws violate his constitutional rights does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding of the law. Furthermore, a person’s disagreement with the government’s tax collection systems and policies does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding of the law.” Id., at 86.

At the end of the first day of deliberation, the jury sent out another note saying that it still could not reach a verdict because “ ‘[w]e are divided on the issue as to if Mr. Cheek honestly & reasonably believed that he was not required to pay income tax.’” Id., at 87. When the jury resumed its deliberations, the District Judge gave the jury an additional instruction. This instruction stated in part that “[a]n honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense and does not negate willfulness,” id., at 88, and that “[ajdvice or research resulting in the conclusion that wages of a privately employed person are not income or that the tax laws are unconstitutional is not objectively reasonable and cannot serve as the basis for a good faith misunderstanding of the law defense.” Ibid. The court also instructed the jury that “[pjersistent refusal to acknowledge the law does not constitute a good *198faith misunderstanding of the law.” Ibid. Approximately two hours later, the jury returned a verdict finding petitioner guilty on all counts.6

Petitioner appealed his convictions, arguing that the District Court erred by instructing the jury that only an objectively reasonable misunderstanding of the law negates the statutory willfulness requirement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected that contention and affirmed the convictions. 882 F. 2d 1263 (1989). In prior cases, the Seventh Circuit had made clear that good-faith misunderstanding of the law negates willfulness only if the defendant’s beliefs are objectively reasonable; in the Seventh Circuit, even actual ignorance is not a defense unless the defendant’s ignorance was itself objectively reasonable. See, e. g., United States v. Buckner, 830 F. 2d 102 (1987). In its opinion in this case, the court noted that several specified beliefs, including the beliefs that the tax laws are unconstitutional and that wages are not income, would not be objectively reasonable.7 Because the Seventh Circuit’s *199interpretation of “willfully” as used in these statutes conflicts with the decisions of several other Courts of Appeals, see, e. g., United States v. Whiteside, 810 F. 2d 1306, 1310-1311 (CA5 1987); United States v. Phillips, 775 F. 2d 262, 263-264 (CA10 1985); United States v. Aitken, 755 F. 2d 188, 191-193 (CA1 1985), we granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 1068 (1990).

i-H h-H

The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system. See, e. g., United States v. Smith, 5 Wheat. 153, 182 (1820) (Livingston, J., dissenting); Barlow v. United States, 7 Pet. 404, 411 (1833); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 167 (1879); Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, 218 U. S. 57, 68 (1910); Lambert v. California, 355 U. S. 225, 228 (1957); Liparota v. United States, 471 U. S. 419, 441 (1985) (White, J., dissenting); o. Holmes, The Common Law 47-48 (1881). Based on the notion that the law is definite and knowable, the common law presumed that every person knew the law. This common-law rule has been applied by the Court in numerous cases construing criminal statutes. See, e. g., United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 U. S. 558 (1971); Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 119-124 (1974); Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U. S. 337 (1952).

The proliferation of statutes and regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the average citizen to know and compre*200hend the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws. Congress has accordingly softened the impact of the common-law presumption by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses. Thus, the Court almost 60 years ago interpreted the statutory term “willfully” as used in the federal criminal tax statutes as carving out an exception to the traditional rule. This special treatment of criminal tax offenses is largely due to the complexity of the tax laws. In United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389 (1933), the Court recognized that:

“Congress did not intend that a person, by reason of a bona fide misunderstanding as to his liability for the tax, as to his duty to make a return, or as to the adequacy of the records he maintained, should become a criminal by his mere failure to measure up to the prescribed standard of conduct.” Id., at 396.

The Court held that the defendant was entitled to an instruction with respect to whether he acted in good faith based on his actual belief. In Murdock, the Court interpreted the term “willfully” as used in the criminal tax statutes generally to mean “an act done with a bad purpose,” id., at 394, or with “an evil motive,” id., at 395.

Subsequent decisions have refined this proposition. In United States v. Bishop, 412 U. S. 346 (1973), we described the term “willfully” as connoting “a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty,” id., at 360, and did so with specific reference to the “bad faith or evil intent” language employed in Murdock. Still later, United States v. Pomponio, 429 U. S. 10 (1976) (per curiam), addressed a situation in which several defendants had been charged with willfully filing false tax returns. The jury was given an instruction on willfulness similar to the standard set forth in Bishop. In addition, it was instructed that “‘[g]ood motive alone is never a defense where the act done or omitted is a crime. ’ ” Id., at 11. The defendants were convicted but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the latter instruc*201tion was improper because the statute required a finding of bad purpose or evil motive. Ibid.

We reversed the Court of Appeals, stating that “the Court of Appeals incorrectly assumed that the reference to an ‘evil motive’ in United States v. Bishop, supra, and prior cases,” ibid., “requires proof of any motive other than an intentional violation of a known legal duty.” Id., at 12. As “the other Courts of Appeals that have considered the question have recognized, willfulness in this context simply means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.” Ibid. We concluded that after instructing the jury on willfulness, “[a]n additional instruction on good faith was unnecessary.” Id., at 13. Taken together, Bishop and Pomponio conclusively establish that the standard for the statutory willfulness requirement is the “voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.”

Ill

Cheek accepts the Pomponio definition of willfulness, Brief for Petitioner 5, and n. 4, 13, 36; Reply Brief for Petitioner 4, 6-7, 11, 13, but asserts that the District Court’s instructions and the Court of Appeals’ opinion departed from that definition. In particular, he challenges the ruling that a good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law, if it is to negate willfulness, must be objectively reasonable. We agree that the Court of Appeals and the District Court erred in this respect.

A

Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases, requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty. We deal first with the case where the issue is whether the defendant knew of the duty purportedly imposed by the provision of the statute or regulation he is accused of violating, a case in which there is no claim that the provision *202at issue is invalid. In such a case, if the Government proves actual knowledge of the pertinent legal duty, the prosecution, without more, has satisfied the knowledge component of the willfulness requirement. But carrying this burden requires negating a defendant’s claim of ignorance of the law or a claim that because of a misunderstanding of the law, he had a good-faith belief that he was not violating any of the provisions of the tax laws. This is so because one cannot be aware that the law imposes a duty upon him and yet be ignorant of it, misunderstand the law, or believe that the duty does not exist. In the end, the issue is whether, based on all the evidence, the Government has proved that the defendant was aware of the duty at issue, which cannot be true if the jury credits a good-faith misunderstanding and belief submission, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable.

In this case, if Cheek asserted that he truly believed that the Internal Revenue Code did not purport to treat wages as income, and the jury believed him, the Government would not have carried its burden to prove willfulness, however unreasonable a court might deem such a belief. Of course, in deciding whether to credit Cheek’s good-faith belief claim, the jury would be free to consider any admissible evidence from any source showing that Cheek was aware of his duty to file a return and to treat wages as income, including evidence showing his awareness of the relevant provisions of the Code or regulations, of court decisions rejecting his interpretation of the tax law, of authoritative rulings of the Internal Revenue Service, or of any contents of the personal income tax return forms and accompanying instructions that made it plain that wages should be returned as income.8

*203We thus disagree with the Court of Appeals’ requirement that a claimed good-faith belief must be objectively reasonable if it is to be considered as possibly negating the Government’s evidence purporting to show a defendant’s awareness of the legal duty at issue. Knowledge and belief are characteristically questions for the factfinder, in this case the jury. Characterizing a particular belief as not objectively reasonable transforms the inquiry into a legal one and would prevent the jury from considering it. It would of course be proper to exclude evidence having no relevance or probative value with respect to willfulness; but it is not contrary to common sense, let alone impossible, for a defendant to be ignorant of his duty based on an irrational belief that he has no duty, and forbidding the jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial provision. Cf. Francis v. Franklin, 471 U. S. 307 (1985); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510 (1979); Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246 (1952). It is common ground that this Court, where possible, interprets congressional enactments so as to avoid raising serious constitutional questions. See, e. g., Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62, and n. 30 (1932); Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U. S. 440, 465-466 (1989).

It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek’s understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be. Of course, the more unreasonable the as*204serted beliefs or misunderstandings are, the more likely the jury will consider them to be nothing more than simple disagreement with known legal duties imposed by the tax laws and will find that the Government has carried its burden of proving knowledge.

B

Cheek asserted in the trial court that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the income tax law is unconstitutional as applied to him and thus could not legally impose any duty upon him of which he should have been aware.9 Such a submission is unsound, not because *205Cheek’s constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they surely are, but because the Murdock-Pomponio line of cases does not support such a position. Those cases construed the willfulness requirement in the criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to require proof of knowledge of the law. This was because in “our complex tax system, uncertainty often arises even among taxpayers who earnestly wish to follow the law,” and “ ‘[i]t is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank difference of opinion or innocent errors made despite the exercise of reasonable care.’” United States v. Bishop, 412 U. S. 346, 360-361 (1973) (quoting Spies v. United States, 317 U. S. 492, 496 (1943)).

Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order.10 They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unen*206forceable. Thus in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax.

We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U. S. C. § 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, § 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. § 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and when he did was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under §§7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts, who “willfully” refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.

We thus hold that in a case like this, a defendant’s views about the validity of the tax statutes are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness and need not be heard by the jury, and, if they are, an instruction to disregard them would be proper. For this purpose, it makes no difference whether the claims of invalidity are frivolous or have substance. It was therefore not error in this case for the District Judge to instruct the jury not to consider Cheek’s claims that the tax laws were unconstitutional. However, it was error for the court to in*207struct the jury that petitioner’s asserted beliefs that wages are not income and that he was not a taxpayer within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code should not be considered by the jury in determining whether Cheek had acted willfully.11

IV

For the reasons set forth in the opinion above, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Souter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Justice Scalia,

concurring in the judgment.

I concur in the judgment of the Court because our cases have consistently held that the failure to pay a tax in the good-faith belief that it is not legally owing is not “willful.” I do not join the Court’s opinion because I do not agree with the test for willfulness that, it directs the Court of Appeals to apply on remand.

As the Court acknowledges, our opinions from the 1930’s to the 1970’s have interpreted the word “willfully” in the criminal tax statutes as requiring the “bad purpose” or “evil motive” of “intentionally] violating] a known legal duty.” See, e. g., United States v. Pomponio, 429 U. S. 10, 12 (1976); United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389, 394-395 (1933). It seems to me that today’s opinion squarely reverses that long-established statutory construction when it says that a good-faith erroneous belief in the unconstitutionality of a tax law is no defense. It is quite impossible to say that a statute which *208one believes unconstitutional represents a “known legal duty.” See Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177-178 (1803).

Although the facts of the present case involve erroneous reliance upon the Constitution in ignoring the otherwise “known legal duty” imposed by the tax statutes, the Court’s new interpretation applies also to erroneous reliance upon a tax statute in ignoring the otherwise “known legal duty” of a regulation, and to erroneous reliance upon a regulation in ignoring the otherwise “known legal duty” of a tax assessment. These situations as well meet the opinion’s crucial test of “reveal[ing] full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable,” ante, at 205-206. There is, moreover, no rational basis for saying that a “willful” violation is established by full knowledge of a statutory requirement, but is not established by full knowledge of a requirement explicitly imposed by regulation or order. Thus, today’s opinion works a revolution in past practice, subjecting to criminal penalties taxpayers who do not comply with Treasury Regulations that are in their view contrary to the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury Rulings that are in their view contrary to the regulations, and even IRS auditor pronouncements that are in their view contrary to Treasury Rulings. The law already provides considerable incentive for taxpayers to be careful in ignoring any official assertion of tax liability, since it contains civil penalties that apply even in the event of a good-faith mistake, see, e. g., 26 U. S. C. §§6651, 6653. To impose in addition criminal penalties for misinterpretation of such a complex body of law is a startling innovation indeed.

I find it impossible to understand how one can derive from the lonesome word “willfully” the proposition that belief in the nonexistence of a textual prohibition excuses liability, but belief in the invalidity (i. e., the legal nonexistence) of a textual prohibition does not. One may say, as the law does *209in many contexts, that “willfully” refers to consciousness of the act but not to consciousness that the act is unlawful. See, e. g., American Surety Co. of New York v. Sullivan, 7 F. 2d 605, 606 (CA2 1925) (L. Hand, J.); cf. United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 U. S. 558, 563-565 (1971). Or alternatively, one may say, as we have said until today with respect to the tax statutes, that “willfully” refers to consciousness of both the act and its illegality. But it seems to me impossible to say that the word refers to consciousness that some legal text exists, without consciousness that that legal text is binding, i. e., with the good-faith belief that it is not a valid law. Perhaps such a test for criminal liability would make sense (though in a field as complicated as federal tax law, I doubt it), but some text other than the mere word “willfully” would have to be employed to describe it — and that text is not ours to write.

Because today’s opinion abandons clear and longstanding precedent to impose criminal liability where taxpayers have had no reason to expect it, because the new contours of criminal liability have no basis in the statutory text, and because I strongly suspect that those new contours make no sense even as a policy matter, I concur only in the judgment of the Court.

Justice Blackmun,

with whom Justice Marshall joins, dissenting.

It seems to me that we are concerned in this case not with “the complexity of the tax laws,” ante, at 200, but with the income tax law in its most elementary and basic aspect: Is a wage earner a taxpayer and are wages income?

The Court acknowledges that the conclusively established standard for willfulness under the applicable statutes is the “‘voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.’” Ante, at 201. See United States v. Bishop, 412 U. S. 346, 360 (1973), and United States v. Pomponio, 429 U. S. 10, 12 (1976). That being so, it is incomprehensible to me how, in this day, more than 70 years after the institution of our *210present federal income tax system with the passage of the Income Tax Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 166, any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections. One might note in passing that this particular taxpayer, after all, was a licensed pilot for one of our major commercial airlines; he presumably was a person of at least minimum intellectual competence.

The District Court’s instruction that an objectively reasonable and good-faith misunderstanding of the law negates willfulness lends further, rather than less, protection to this defendant, for it adds an additional hurdle for the prosecution to overcome. Petitioner should be grateful for this further protection, rather than be opposed to it.

This Court’s opinion today, I fear, will encourage taxpayers to cling to frivolous views of the law in the hope of convincing a jury of their sincerity. If that ensues, I suspect we have gone beyond the limits of common sense.

While I may not agree with every word the Court of Appeals has enunciated in its opinion, I would affirm its judgment in this case. I therefore dissent.

Opinion

RICHARDSON, J.

Defendant Neva Snyder appeals from a judgment convicting her of possession of a concealable firearm by a convicted felon (Pen. Code, § 12021), based upon her 1973 conviction for sale of marijuana, a felony (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11531). Defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of her mistaken belief that her prior conviction was only a misdemeanor. We will conclude that defendant’s asserted mistake regarding her legal status as a convicted *592felon did not constitute a defense to the firearm possession charge. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

At trial, defendant offered to prove the following facts supporting her theory of mistake: The marijuana possession charge resulted from a plea bargain not involving a jail or prison sentence. At the time the bargain was struck, defendant’s attorney advised her that she was pleading guilty to a misdemeanor. Believing that she was not a felon, defendant thereafter had registered to vote, and had voted. On one prior occasion, police officers found a gun in her home but, after determining that it was registered to her husband, the officers filed no charges against defendant.

The trial court refused to admit any evidence of defendant’s mistaken belief that her prior conviction was a misdemeanor and that she was not a felon. The court also rejected proposed instructions requiring proof of defendant’s prior knowledge of her felony conviction as an element of the offense charged.

Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a), provides: “Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the . . . State of California . . . who owns or has in his possession or under his custody or control any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is guilty of a public offense, ...”

The elements of the offense proscribed by section 12021 are conviction of a felony and ownership, possession, custody or control of a firearm capable of being concealed on the person. (People v. Bray (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 494, 497 [124 Cal.Rptr. 913]; People v. Neese (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 235, 245 [77 Cal.Rptr. 314]; People v. Nieto (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 364, 368 [55 Cal.Rptr. 546].) No specific criminal intent is required, and a general intent to commit the proscribed act is sufficient to sustain a conviction. (People v. Neese, supra, at p. 245; People v. McCullough (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 712, 718 [35 Cal.Rptr. 591].) With respect to the elements of possession or custody, it has been held that knowledge is an element of the offense. (People v. Burch (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 754, 770-771 [17 Cal.Rptr. 102]; People v. Gonzales (1925) 72 Cal.App. 626, 630-631 [237 P. 812].)

Does section 12021 also require knowledge of one’s legal status as a convicted felon? No case has so held. Penal Code section 26 provides that a person is incapable of committing a crime if he acted under a “mistake of fact” which disproves criminal intent. In this regard, the cases have distinguished between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. As we stated in an early case: “It is an emphatic postulate of both civil and penal law that *593ignorance of a law is no excuse for a violation thereof. Of course it is based on a fiction, because no man can know all the law, but it is a maxim which the law itself does not permit any one to gainsay .... The rule rests on public necessity; the welfare of society and the safety of the state depend upon its enforcement. If a person accused of a crime could shield himself behind the defense that he was ignorant of the law which he violated, immunity from punishment would in most cases result.” (People v. O’Brien (1892) 96 Cal. 171, 176 [31 P. 45]; see Brown v. State Department of Health (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 548, 554-555 [150 Cal.Rptr. 344], and cases cited.) Accordingly, lack of actual knowledge of the provisions of Penal Code section 12021 is irrelevant; the crucial question is whether the defendant was aware that he was engaging in the conduct proscribed by that section. (People v. Norton (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d Supp. 14, 21 [146 Cal.Rptr. 343]; People v. Howard (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 249, 256 [133 Cal.Rptr. 689]; People v. Mendoza (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 835, 843 [60 Cal.Rptr. 5].)

In the present case, defendant was presumed to know that it is unlawful for a convicted felon to possess a concealable firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12021.) She was also charged with knowledge that the offense of which she was convicted (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11531) was, as a matter of law, a felony. That section had prescribed a state prison term of from five years to life, and the express statutory definition of a “felony” is “a crime which is punishable with death or by imprisonment in the state prison.” (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (a).)

Thus, regardless of what she reasonably believed, or what her attorney may have told her, defendant was deemed to know under the law that she was a convicted felon forbidden to possess concealable firearms. Her asserted mistake regarding her correct legal status was a mistake of law, not fact. It does not constitute a defense to section 12021.

None of the California cases relied on by defendant is apposite here. People v. Hernandez (1964) 61 Cal.2d 529 [39 Cal.Rptr. 361, 393 P.2d 673, 8 A.L.R.3d 1092], and People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143 [125 Cal.Rptr. 745, 542 P.2d 1337], each involved mistakes of fact, not law. In Hernandez, the mistake concerned the age of the alleged victim of a statutory rape. In Mayberry, defendant erred in assuming that the adult victim of forcible rape consented to his acts. People v. Vogel (1956) 46 Cal.2d 798 [299 P.2d 850], involved the good faith belief of a defendant charged with bigamy that he is free to remarry. We were careful to explain that defendant’s mistake was a factual one: “We have concluded that defendant is not guilty of bigamy, if he had a bona fide and reasonable belief that facts existed that left him free to remarry. ” (Id., at p. 801; italics *594added.) Moreover, Vogel characterized bigamy as a crime which “has been regarded for centuries as . . . involving moral turpitude, . . .” Obviously a bona fide belief that one is free to remarry nullifies the moral opprobrium attached to the charge. On the other hand, being an ex-felon in possession of a concealable firearm, while illegal, hardly stamps the person charged as a moral leper. His belief that he is not a felon thus does not affect the criminality of his conduct.

Our conclusion is confirmed by federal cases interpreting a similar federal statute forbidding possession of a firearm by one convicted of a felony. (18 U.S.C.A. Appen. § 1202(a).) The only element of the federal offense which is not found in "section 12021 of the Penal Code is an effect upon “commerce.” (See United States v. Bass (1971) 404 U.S. 336, 347-349 [30 L.Ed.2d 488, 496-497, 92 S.Ct. 515].) The federal statute has been uniformly interpreted as requiring only that the defendant was in fact a convicted felon, and not that he actually knew he was a felon. (United States v. Locke (9th Cir. 1976) 542 F.2d 800, 801; United States v. Mathews (9th Cir. 1975) 518 F.2d 1296; United States v. Crow (9th Cir. 1971) 439 F.2d 1193, 1196.) As stated in Locke, “Because the crimes here charged do not require a specific intent [citation], the fact that appellant may have been advised by a public defender that he was not a convicted felon, has no relevance.” (P. 801.)

Defendant relies primarily upon People v. Bray, supra, 52 Cal.App.3d at p. 494, but that case is distinguishable. There defendant pleaded guilty in Kansas to being an accessory before the fact and was placed on two years’ summary probation, which he successfully completed. When he subsequently sought to register to vote, he filled out an explanatory form referring to a Kansas offense, and indicating that he was uncertain whether he had been convicted of a felony. He was permitted to vote. Seeking employment as a security guard, he stated that he had not been convicted of a felony but described the circumstances of his arrest and probation. The Bureau of Collection and Investigative Services registered him as a guard. On several other job applications he indicated his uncertainty as to his status while fully setting forth the circumstances of his arrest and probation.

In Bray, the court concluded that under these unusual circumstances the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on mistake or ignorance of fact and knowledge of the facts which make the act unlawful. (52 Cal.App.3d, at p. 499.) The court cautioned, however, that its decision “should not be interpreted to mean instructions on mistake or ignorance of fact and knowledge of the facts are required every time a defendant claims he did not know he was a felon .... It is only in very unusual circumstances such as these that the giving of these instructions is necessary.” (Ibid.)

*595In the present case, unlike Bray, defendant made no attempt to inform government officials of the circumstances of her conviction or to seek their advice regarding her correct legal status. (Some authorities have suggested that reliance upon the erroneous advice of governmental authorities might constitute an exception to the general rule that a mistake of law is no defense. See Perkins on Criminal Law (2d ed. 1969) p. 938; A.L.I. Model Pen. Code (Proposed Official Draft 1962) § 2.04(3)(b).)

We conclude that the trial court properly excluded evidence of defendant’s asserted mistake regarding her status as a convicted felon.

The judgment is affirmed.

Bird, C. J., Mosk, J. and Kaus, J. concurred.

BROUSSARD, J.

I dissent.

The two elements of a violation of Penal Code section 12021 are felony status and possession of a concealable firearm. While no specific criminal intent is required, a general criminal intent should be required as to both elements in accordance with long-settled rules of statutory interpretation, and an honest and reasonable mistake as to either element of the offense, however induced, should negate the requisite general criminal intent. Defendant’s testimony if believed would have established an honest and reasonable mistaken belief that her prior offense was not a felony but a misdemeanor, and it was prejudicial error to refuse to admit the evidence and to refuse instructions on the mistake doctrine.

The majority have adopted a special strict liability rule as to section 12021, holding that a felon is charged with knowledge of his status and that an honest and reasonable mistaken belief as to the nature of the conviction is not a defense unless apparently it is induced or corroborated in whole or in part by governmental conduct. The traditional and longstanding defense of mistake negating criminal intent should not be limited to situations where the mistake is induced or corroborated by government officials. Irrebutable presumptions of knowledge are not favored in the criminal law, and because the source of an honest and reasonable mistake does not affect the question of the existence of criminal- intent, we should not accept the government source limitation.

During a lawful search of defendant and her husband’s home in 1979, officers found one loaded handgun and two other handguns which were partially disassembled. In 1973 she had been convicted upon a guilty plea of sale of marijuana, a felony. (Former Health & Saf. Code, § 11531.)

*596Defendant sought to testify that she believed that her marijuana possession conviction had been for a misdemeanor rather than a felony. She offered to testify that she had not been sentenced to jail or prison but was on probation for two years, that her attorney told her at the time of the plea bargain that she was pleading guilty to a misdemeanor, and that believing she was not a felon she had since registered to vote and voted. She also offered to testify that on a prior occasion, officers found a pistol in her home but that after determining the gun was registered to her husband, no charges were filed for possession of the gun. Other charges were filed but dismissed. Her husband had also been convicted in 1973 of the same marijuana charge.

The trial court refused to admit the evidence of defendant’s mistaken belief that the prior conviction was a misdemeanor and that she was not a felon. The court also rejected offered instructions to require knowledge of a prior felony conviction as an element of the offense, and to define “knowingly,” to explain the effect of ignorance or mistake of fact disproving criminal intent. (CALJIC Nos. 1.21, 4.35, 3.31.5 [paraphrased].)1 The instructions, if given, would have required the jury to find that defendant knew she was a felon as an element of the crime.

Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a) provides: “Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the . . . State of California . . . who owns or has in his possession or under his custody or control any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is guilty of a public offense, ...”

We recently recognized our duty to reconcile the provisions of section 12021 with other Penal Code provisions in People v. King (1978) 22 *597Cal.3d 12, 23 [148 Cal.Rptr. 409, 582 P.2d 1000]. In that case, a felon during a melee involving violence by intruders took a pistol and fired it. We held that it was error to refuse to instruct the jury on self-defense and defense of others. (22 Cal.3d at p. 26.) We reasoned that the section 12021 prohibition of possession by a felon of a concealable firearm must be reconciled with the statutory provisions of the Penal and Civil Codes permitting any person the right to use force in defense of self or others. (22 Cal.3d at p. 23.)

In the instant case we are similarly called upon to reconcile section 12021 with Penal Code sections 26 and 20.

Penal Code section 26 provides generally that a person is incapable of committing a crime when the act was committed under a mistake of fact disproving any criminal intent. Section 20 of that code provides: “In every crime or public offense there must exist a union, or joint operation of act and intent, or criminal negligence.

“The word ‘intent’ in section 20 means ‘wrongful intent.’ (See People v. Vogel (1956) 46 Cal.2d 798, 801, fn. 2 [299 P.2d 850].) ‘So basic is this requirement [of a union of act and wrongful intent] that it is an invariable element of every crime unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication.’ (Id., at p. 801.)” (People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143, 154 [125 Cal.Rptr. 745, 542 P.2d 1337].)

At common law an honest and reasonable belief in circumstances which, if true, would make the defendant’s conduct innocent was held to be a good defense. (People v. Hernandez (1964) 61 Cal.2d 529, 535 [39 Cal.Rptr. 361, 393 P.2d 673, 8 A.L.R.3d 1092].) The concept of mens rea, the guilty mind, expresses the principle that it is not conduct alone but conduct accompanied by certain mental states which concerns, or should concern the law. While in some cases, culpability had been completely eliminated as a necessary element of criminal conduct, the court has moved away from imposition of criminal liability in the absence of culpability where the governing statute, by implication or otherwise, expresses no legislative intent or policy to be served by strict liability. (Id., at pp. 532-533.)

The elements of the offense proscribed by section 12021 are conviction of a felony and ownership, possession, custody or control of a firearm capable of being concealed on the person. (People v. Bray (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 494, 497 [124 Cal.Rptr. 913]; People v. Neese (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 235, 245 [77 Cal.Rptr. 314]; People v. Nieto (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 364, 368 [55 Cal.Rptr. 546].) While no specific criminal intent is required, a general intent to commit the proscribed act is *598necessary. (People v. Neese, supra, 272 Cal.App.2d 235, 245; People v. McCullough (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 712, 718 [35 Cal.Rptr. 591].) As to the element of possession or custody, it has been held that knowledge is an element of the offense. (People v. Burch (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 754, 770-771 [17 Cal.Rptr. 102]; People v. Gonzales (1925) 72 Cal.App. 626, 630-631 [237 P. 812].)

There does not appear to be any provision in section 12021 by implication or otherwise indicating legislative intent or policy to be served by refusing to apply the general criminal intent requirement to both of the elements of the offense. The Attorney General argues that, because knowledge of possession or custody of the gun are essential to conviction, strict liability would not result from holding that knowledge of a felony conviction is irrelevant. While under such construction the offense would not involve strict liability as to those who were unaware that they possessed a handgun, it would impose strict liability upon those who were unaware of their felony convictions and could legally possess handguns in the absence of conviction. The language of section 12021 sets forth both elements of the offense in parallel construction, and there is no basis in the language or grammatical construction of the statute warranting a distinction between the two elements with respect to the mens rea requirement. In the absence of any provision reflecting legislative intent or policy to establish strict liability, the mens rea requirement is applicable to the felony conviction element of the offense as well as the possession and custody element. (People v. Bray, supra, 52 Cal.App.3d 494, 498-499; cf. People v. Mendoza (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 835, 843 [60 Cal.Rptr. 5].)

To hold otherwise is contrary to the settled California rule that a mens rea requirement is an “invariable” element of every crime unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication. People v. Mayberry, supra, 15 Cal.3d 143, 154; People v. Vogel, supra, 46 Cal.2d 798, 801.) Having established the rule, we must assume the Legislature is aware of it and acting in accordance with it, and the absence of any provision to establish strict liability must be read as reflecting legislative intent to require wrongful intent.

The majority rely upon federal cases interpreting a federal statute forbidding possession of a firearm by one convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors. (18 U.S.C. Appen. § 1202(a)(1); United States v. Locke (9th Cir. 1976) 542 F.2d 800, 801; United States v. Mathews (9th Cir. 1975) 518 F.2d 1296; United States v. Crow (9th Cir. 1971) 439 F.2d 1193, 1196.) In particular they rely upon the following statement from Locke: “Because the crimes here charged do not require specific intent, United States v. Quiroz, 449 F.2d 583, 585 (CA9 1971), the fact that *599appellant may have been advised by a public defender that he was not a convicted felon, has no relevance.” (542 F.2d at p. 801.) (Maj. opn., ante, p. 595.)

None of the federal cases cite or discuss statutes comparable to Penal Code sections 20 and 26. Concluding that there is no scienter or mens rea requirement, the courts reason that the crime is a statutory offense rather than a common law offense and that as to statutory offenses there ordinarily is no scienter requirement in the absence of express provision therefor. (United States v. Crow, supra, 439 F.2d 1193; United States v. Quiroz, supra, 449 F.2d 583, 585.) Penal Code sections 20 and 26 are part of our statutory law, and there is no basis for a conclusion that they apply only to common law offenses and not to statutory offenses. Because of those statutes, we have adopted a rule of construction directly contrary to the federal rule, i.e., wrongful intent “is an invariable element of every crime unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication.” (People v. Vogel, supra, 46 Cal.2d 798, 801.) Just as the federal courts adhere to their rules as to the effect of congressional silence, we should adhere to the legislative direction in sections 20 and 26 and our rules as to legislative silence. Having established the ground rules for statutory interpretation, we may not abrogate them on the basis of federal cases applying contrary ground rules.

In determining whether a defendant’s mistaken belief disproves criminal intent pursuant to Penal Code section 26, the courts have drawn a distinction between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. Criminal intent is the intent to do the prohibited act, not the intent to violate the law. (1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1963) § 148, p. 141.) “It is an emphatic postulate of both civil and penal law that ignorance of a law is no excuse for a violation thereof. Of course it is based on a fiction, because no man can know all the law, but it is a maxim which the law itself does not permit any one to gainsay .... The rule rests on public necessity; the welfare of society and the safety of the state depend upon its enforcement. If a person accused of a crime could shield himself behind the defense that he was ignorant of the law which he violated, immunity from punishment would in most cases result.” (People v. O’Brien (1892) 96 Cal. 171, 176 [31 P. 45].) Accordingly, lack of knowledge of the provisions of Penal Code section 12021 is irrelevant; the crucial question is whether the defendant was aware that he was engaging in the conduct proscribed by that section. (People v. Howard (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 249,.256 [133 Cal.Rptr. 689]; People v. Mendoza, supra, 251 Cal.App.2d 835, 843.)

While mistake as to whether the conduct is violative of a statute is not a defense, a mistaken impression as to the legal effect of a collateral matter *600may mean that a defendant does not understand the significance of his conduct and may negate criminal intent. When the victim’s status is an element of the crime, a mistaken belief as to the status has been held a defense in several decisions by this court. In People v. Hernandez, supra, 61 Cal.2d 529, 532 et seq., it was held that a reasonable and honest belief that the prosecutrix was 18 years or more of age would be a defense to a charge of statutory rape, negating the requisite mental intent. Similarly, in People v. Atchison (1978) 22 Cal.3d 181, 183 [148 Cal.Rptr. 881, 583 P.2d 735], it was held that a reasonable and honest belief that the victim was 19 years of age was a defense to charges of annoying or molesting a child under age 18 and of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. And in People v. Mayberry, supra, 15 Cal.3d 143, 153-158, it was held that a mistaken belief that the prosecutrix had consented would be a defense to a charge of forcible rape and kidnaping.

This court has also held that criminal intent may be negated by defendant’s reasonable and bona fide but erroneous belief as to his status. In People v. Vogel, supra, 46 Cal.2d 798, 801 et seq., the defendant was prosecuted for bigamy, and it was held that the defendant’s bona fide and reasonable belief that his first wife had divorced him and remarried would be a good defense. The court reasoned in part that it would not be reasonable to hold “that a person is guilty of bigamy who remarries in good faith in reliance on a judgment of divorce or annulment that is subsequently found not to be the ‘judgment of a competent court’ (Pen. Code, § 282), particularly when such a judgment is obtained by the former husband or wife of such person in any one of the numerous jurisdictions in which such judgments can be obtained. Since it is often difficult for laymen to know when a judgment is not that of a competent court, we cannot reasonably expect them always to have such knowledge and make them criminals if their bona fide belief proves to be erroneous.” (46 Cal.2d, at p. 804; see People v. Roessler (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 603, 604 [31 Cal.Rptr. 684] (defendant remarried after service of the interlocutory decree of divorce but before entry of final decree).) The court also pointed out that at common law an honest and reasonable belief in circumstances which, if true, would make the act for which the person is indicted an innocent act, has always been held to be a good defense. (46 Cal.2d, at p. 805.)

People v. Flumerfelt (1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 495, 497-498 [96 P.2d 190], also illustrates the distinction between mistake of fact and mistake of law. In that case, the defendant was charged with selling corporate securities without a permit. The defendant claimed that before she sold the securities, her attorney told her that a permit to sell had been obtained, and it was held that her honest but mistaken belief that a permit to sell had been *601issued constituted a defense. However, the court distinguished the situation where counsel erroneously advises that the instrument to be sold is not a security, pointing out that a mistake as to the legal consequences of the act which constitutes a violation of the statute would not be a defense. (35 Cal.App.2d at pp. 498-499; see 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes, supra, § 151, P- 145.)

The O’Brien, Hernandez, Atchison, Mayberry, Vogel and Flumerfelt cases, read together, make clear that a mistake of law is one premised on ignorance of the terms of the statute which the defendant is charged with violating. However, when the defendant reasonably and honestly believes that the statute is not applicable to him or that he has complied with it, there is a mistake of fact. There is a mistake of fact even though the matter as to which the defendant is mistaken is a question of law. The questions of age in Hernandez and Atchison were matters resolved as a matter of law as was marital status in Vogel and the nonissuance of a permit in Flumerfelt.

The Court of Appeal has held that a mistaken belief that a conviction was not a felony conviction could negate criminal intent in a prosecution for violation of Penal Code section 12021. (People v. Bray, supra, 52 Cal.App.3d 494, 497-499.) Bray graphically illustrates the injustice which results from holding that a reasonable and good faith belief of lack of felony status is not a defense. Bray pled guilty in Kansas to being an accessory before the fact and was placed on two years summary probation which he successfully completed. When he subsequently sought to register to vote, he filled out an explanatory form referring to the Kansas offense, indicating he was uncertain whether he had been convicted of a felony. He was permitted to vote. Seeking employment as a security guard, he stated he had not been convicted of a felony but set forth the circumstances of his arrest and probation. The Bureau of Collection and Investigative Services registered him as a guard. On several other job applications he indicated his uncertainty as to his status setting forth the circumstances of his arrest and probation. At Bray’s trial for violation of section 12021, the prosecutor recognized “ ‘in even our own jurisdiction, let alone a foreign jurisdiction such as the State of Kansas, it’s extremely difficult to determine whether a sentence was a felony or a misdemeanor.’” (52 Cal.App.3d, at p. 498.)

In Bray, it was concluded that in the circumstances the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on mistake or ignorance of fact and knowledge of the facts which make the act unlawful. (52 Cal.App.3d, at p. 499.)

The Court of Appeal stated that its decision should not be interpreted to mean instructions on mistake or ignorance of fact or knowledge of the facts are required every time a defendant claims he did not know he was a felon. *602 (Id.) Relying on that statement, the majority concludes that Bray should be limited to situations where a state agency has misled the defendant. The statement relied upon merely reflects that only in rare cases will there be a basis for a reasonable belief that a felony conviction was a misdemeanor conviction. The reasoning in Bray applies to any case where there is a reasonable and good faith mistake and is in accord with the common law and our statutory rule. The source of the reasonable and good faith mistake does not affect the existence of criminal intent.2

Had the trial court in the instant case admitted the offered evidence and given the requested instruction, the jury could properly have concluded that defendant had a reasonable and good faith belief that her conviction was not a felony conviction. She was granted probation without jail or prison sentence. Her attorney had advised her that the offense was a misdemeanor,3 and there were additional circumstances reflecting a good faith belief.

The errors in excluding the offered evidence and refusing the offered instructions denied defendant the right to have the jury determine substantial issues material to her guilt and require reversal of the conviction. (People v. King (1978) 22 Cal.3d 12, 27 [148 Cal.Rptr. 409, 582 P.2d 1000]; People v. Mayberry, supra, 15 Cal.3d 143, 157-158.)

I would reverse the judgment.

Newman, J., and Reynoso, J., concurred.

Opinion

DOWDS, J.

Defendant, charged with a violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision 1, grand theft, appeals his conviction after a jury trial of petty theft, a lesser but necessarily included offense. His contention on appeal is that the jury was improperly instructed. The only facts *Supp. 3set forth in the recprd on appeal are that defendant was charged with stealing four wooden beams from a construction site and that the state of the evidence was such that the jury could have found that the defendant believed either (1) that the beams had been abandoned as worthless and the owner had no objection to his taking them or (2) that they had substantial value, had not been abandoned and he had no right to take them.

The court refused two jury instructions proposed by defendant reading as follows:

Defendant’s A

“If one takes personal property with the good faith belief that the property has been abandoned or discarded by the true owner, he is not guilty of theft. This is the case even if such good faith belief is unreasonable. The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not so believe for you to convict a defendant of theft.”

Defendant’s B

“If one takes personal property with the good faith belief that he has permission to take the property, he is not guilty of theft. This is the case even if such good faith belief is unreasonable.

The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not so believe for you to convict a defendant of theft.”

Instead, the court instructed the jury in the words of the following modified instructions:

Modified-Defendant’s A

“If one takes personal property in the reasonable and good faith belief that the property has been abandoned or discarded by the true owner, he is not guilty of theft.”

Modified-Defendant’s B

“If one takes personal property in the reasonable and good faith belief that he has the consent or permission of the owner to take the property, he is not guilty of theft.

*Supp. 4“If you have a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the required criminal intent as specified in these instructions, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal.”

Accordingly, the question for determination on appeal is whether the defendant should be acquitted if there is a reasonable doubt that he had a good faith belief that the property had been abandoned or that he had the permission of the owner to take the property or whether that belief must be a reasonable one as well as being held in good faith.

A recent decision by the California Supreme Court throws light on this question. In People v. Wetmore (1978) 22 Cal.3d 318 [149 Cal.Rptr. 265, 583 P.2d 1308], defendant was charged with burglary, like theft a specific intent crime.1 The Supreme Court held that the trial court had erroneously refused to consider at the guilt phase of the trial evidence that, because of mental illness, defendant was incapable of forming the specific intent required for conviction of the crime, instead of receiving such evidence only in respect of his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The court disapproved dictum in People v. Wells (1949) 33 Cal.2d 330 [202 P.2d 53] that if psychiatric reports described a defendant’s insanity as well as his diminished capacity, the evidence was inadmissible to prove his lack of specific intent, stating, at pages 323-324: “In holding that defendant’s psychiatric evidence could not be utilized to prove that he lacked the specific intent required for the offense of burglary, the trial court followed a dictum laid down in our decision in People v. Wells, supra, 33 Cal.2d 330. Wells, the seminal decision which established the doctrine of diminished capacity in California law, held that ‘evidence of diminished mental capacity, whether caused by intoxication, trauma, or disease, can be used to show that a defendant did not have a specific mental state essential to an offense.’ (People v. Conley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 310, 316 [49 Cal.Rptr. 815, 411 P.2d 911].) In dictum, however, Wells stated that since sanity is conclusively presumed at the guilt trial, ‘evidence tending to show lack of mental capacity to commit the crime because of legal insanity is barred at that stage.’ (33 Cal.2d 330, 350.) The Wells opinion later restated that conclusion in different terms: ‘[I]f the proffered evidence tends to show not merely that he [defendant] did or did not, but rather that because of legal insanity he could not, entertain the specific intent *Supp. 5or other essential mental state, then that evidence is inadmissible under the not guilty plea....’ (P. 351.)

“As we shall explain, the Wells dictum imposes an illogical and unworkable rule which has not been followed in subsequent cases. Wells spoke of excluding evidence which tended to prove ‘lack of mental capacity. ..because of legal insanity.’ (P. 350.) Mental incapacity does not occur ‘because of legal insanity;’ instead both insanity and diminished capacity are legal conclusions derived from evidence of defendant’s mental condition. (See Comment (1971) 18 UCLA L.Rev. 561, 563-564, fn. 11.) Consequently, if the evidence of a defendant’s mental illness indicates that the defendant lacked the specific intent to commit the charged crime such evidence cannot reasonably be ignored at the guilt trial merely because it might (but might not) also persuade the trier of fact that the defendant is insane.

“Wells' distinction between evidence that defendant did not entertain the requisite intent, which is admissible, and evidence that he could not entertain that intent, which is inadmissible, cannot be supported. ‘[A]s a matter of logic, any proof tending to show that a certain mental condition could not exist is relevant and should be admissible to show that it did not exist. And, of course, proof that something could not exist is the best possible evidence that it did not exist.’ (Louisell & Hazard, Insanity as a Defense: The Bifurcated Trial (1961) 49 Cal.L.Rev. 805, 819.) Moreover, as Justice Kaus pointed out in People v. Steele (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 182, 190-191 [46 Cal.Rptr. 704], evidence which tends to prove that a defendant could not entertain a certain intent may, when subject to cross-examination, convince the trier of fact that defendant was able to entertain the intent but did not do so on the occasion of the crime. Thus, Steele concludes, the trial court cannot refuse to admit such evidence when offered to prove diminished capacity.”

The court concluded, at page 327: “We therefore hold that evidence of diminished capacity is admissible at the guilt phase whether or not that evidence may also be probative of insanity. The trial court erred when, relying on the Wells dictum, it refused to consider evidence of diminished capacity in determining defendant’s guilt.”

The instant case, does not, of course, involve evidence of mental illness. Evidence was presented, however, from which the jury could have concluded that defendant believed that the wooden beams had been abandoned and that the owner had no objection to his taking them, i.e., *Supp. 6that he lacked the specific criminal intent required to commit the crime of theft (intent permanently to deprive an owner of his property). A similar situation existed in People v. Photo (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 345 [114 P.2d 71], where defendant’s conviction of grand theft for the taking of certain boxes of oranges which he thought he had purchased was reversed, the Court of Appeal stating at page 353: “Felonious intent is an essence of the crime of larceny. The general rule stated in 36 C. J., section 105, page 764, is: ‘If one, in good faith, takes the property of another, believing it to be legally his own, or that he has a legal right to its possession, he is not guilty of larceny, although his claim is based on a misconception of the law or of his rights under it, for although ignorance of law and honest intentions cannot shield a man from civil liability for a trespass committed by him, yet they do protect him from criminal liability, by divesting the act of the felonious intent without which it cannot be a crime. It is necessary, however, in all cases that the claim of right to be a bona fide one, and not a mere cover for a felonious taking, and must be something more than a vague impression; it must amount to an honest conviction. Knowledge of the existence of an adverse claim by another person does not negative the existence of good faith.’

“From the evidence it appears that Photo apparently took the fruit, under a claim of title in himself, and if done in good faith after receiving what he thought was legal advice though it might have been erroneous, a presumption arose in his favor that the taking lacked the elements necessary to constitute larceny.”

Earlier California cases are to the same effect. In People v. Devine (1892) 95 Cal. 227 [30 P. 378], defendant’s conviction of larceny was reversed. He had driven away in a wagon, without any attempt at secrecy, a number of hogs, his own and three bearing another’s mark or brand. The Supreme Court pointed out: “There are cases in which all the knowledge which a person might have acquired by due diligence is to be imputed to him. But. where a felonious intent must be proven, it can be done only by proving what the accused knew. One cannot intend to steal property which he believes to be his own. He may be careless, and omit to make an effort to ascertain that the property which he thinks his own belongs to another; but so long as he believes it to be his own, he cannot feloniously steal it.... ” (Id. at pp. 230-231.)

In re Bayles (1920) 47 Cal.App. 517 [190 P. 1034] concerned the owner and manager of an apartment house who was convicted of lar*Supp. 7ceny based on evidence that she had seized a sewing machine and victrola of" a former tenant under claim of lien to secure certain charges allegedly owed by the tenant. The Court of Appeal declined to decide such fine points relating to the validity of the claim of lien as whether the tenant had left the apartment sufficiently clean, stating at pages 520-521: “[E]ven though the standard of cleanliness exacted by the petitioner should be found by the jury to be an unreasonable standard,' and not the standard contemplated by the agreement between the parties, yet, we think petitioner would not be guilty of grand larceny. The record discloses no evil or felonious intent upon the part of the petitioner; she was merely seeking to enforce her civil rights as she believed them to exist. Larceny is the felonious stealing, taking, carrying, leading, or driving away the personal property of another. (Sec. 484, Pen. Code.) Every taking by one person of the personal property of another, without his consent, is not larceny. Felonious intent is of the essence of the crime of larceny. (People v. Devine, 95 Cal. 227, [30 Pac. 378].) If a jury should determine that the apartment was clean, according to the standard contemplated by the parties at the time they made their agreement, at the time petitioner took possession of the goods, and that, therefore, no money was due petitioner for cleaning the same, Mr. Tucker could be amply compensated in damages for the wrongful detention of his property. (Sec. 667, Code Civ. Proc., and sec. 3336, Civ. Code.) But this question must be tried out in a civil action, and not in a criminal proceeding. (Sec. 3379, Civ. Code; sec. 3380, Civ. Code; secs. 870, 509, 510, 511 and 512, Code Civ. Proc.)”

Defendant was discharged from custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus.

Cases in other jurisdictions also hold that where the law requires a specific criminal intent, it is not enough merely to prove that a reasonable man would have had that intent, without meeting the burden of proof that the defendant himself also entertained it. For example, in State v. Ebbeller (1920) 283 Mo. 57. [222 S.W. 396], a conviction of knowingly receiving a stolen automobile was reversed because the court gave the following erroneous jury instruction: “‘Éy the term “knowing” that the property was stolen is not meant absolute personal and certain knowledge on the part of the defendant that the property mentioned in the indictment had been stolen, but such knowledge and information in his possession at the time he received the same, if you believe he did receive it, as would put a reasonably prudent man, exercising ordinary caution, on his guard, and would cause such a man exercising such cau*Supp. 8tion, and under circumstances which you believe defendant received the property, to believe and be satisfied that the property had been stolen.’” (222 S.W. at p. 397.)

In reversing, the court pointed out the error in the instruction as follows: “It will be noticed that the instruction does permit a conviction if the facts were such as (in the opinion of the jury) would have caused a reasonably prudent person, exercising ordinary caution, to have believed that the property had been stolen at the time received.

“We are inclined to the view ... that the learned attorney representing the appellant is correct in stating that—“‘The question is not what some other person would have believed and known from the circumstances attending the receipt of the property, but what did this defendant believe and know.’” (Id.)

Similarly, in Kasle v. United States (6th Cir. 1916) 233 Fed. 878 a conviction of receiving stolen goods was reversed because of error in jury instructions which the appellate court read as informing the jury that the defendant could be convicted if a reasonable and honest man of average intelligence would have known the goods were stolen under the facts existing at the time, the court stating: “The effect of such tests was to charge the accused with guilty knowledge or not upon what the jury might find would have induced belief in the mind of a man such as they were told to consider, rather than the belief that was actually created in the mind of the accused; or, at last, the accused might be condemned even if his only fault consisted in being less cautious or suspicious than honest men of average intelligence are of the acts of others. The result of the rule of the charge would be to convict a man, not because guilty, but because stupid. The issue was whether the accused had knowledge—not whether some other person would have obtained knowledge—that the goods had been stolen.” (Id. at p. 887)

In State v. Aschenbrenner (1943) 171 Ore. 664 [138 P.2d 911] the following instruction in a larceny case was held to be erroneous: “You are instructed that in order to convict the defendants of the crime charged, it is necessary for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants had knowledge, or notice of such facts and circumstances as would have convinced a reasonable man of ordinary intelligence and observation, that estray sheep were in the Aschenbrenner flock, and if upon the whole evidence in this case you have a reasonable doubt that the facts and circumstances known to the defen*Supp. 9dants (if you find any were known to them), were such that a reasonable man of ordinary intelligence and observation would have known that estray sheep were in the Aschenbrenner flock, then you should find the defendants not guilty of the crime charged.

“On the other hand, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances were such as to lead a rational man, a man of ordinary intelligence and observation, to know that estray sheep were in the Aschenbrenner flock, such circumstances would be sufficient to justify you in finding that the defendants knew estray sheep were in the Aschenbrenner flock.” (171 Ore. at pp. 668-669.) The Supreme Court of Oregon said: “We are of the opinion that the circuit court erred in instructing the jury that circumstances which would lead a man of ordinary intelligence and observation to know that estray sheep were in the Aschenbrenner flock ‘would be sufficient to justify’ it ‘in finding that the defendants knew’ that fact. It seldom happens that direct evidence can be produced that the accused had actual knowledge of a fact. And in the absence of direct evidence knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. The issue, however, was whether the defendants had knowledge that estray sheep were in the flock, not whether some other person would or could have obtained that knowledge under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence. It might have appeared to the jury that the defendants, or some of them, did not possess the intelligence or observation of an ordinary man, or that in a given instance they, or some of them, acted unwisely, unreasonably, imprudently or carelessly, but not with criminal intent. The instruction complained of was not only erroneous, but highly prejudicial to the defendants’ rights.” (Id. at p. 674) The Supreme Court of Arizona, in Reser v. State (1924) 27 Ariz. 43 [229 P. 936] held erroneous a jury instruction in a receiving stolen property case setting forth a test of whether the defendant received the property “under such circumstances that a man of ordinary prudence and caution would be satisfied that it was stolen property,” the court stating: “It is contended that these instructions are erroneous, because they authorize a conviction even though appellant may not have had guilty knowledge that the property was stolen. It will be observed that they do permit a verdict of guilty whether defendant’s knowledge of the theft was actual or merely imputed. Under the statement that, if the facts under which the property was received by the accused were such that a man of ordinary prudence and caution would have been satisfied that it was stolen, the law imputed to the defendant knowledge of this fact, the jury’s only duty on the question of guilty knowledge was to decide what an ordinarily pru*Supp. 10dent and cautious person would have done under the circumstances. This was equivalent to advising the jury that, if it concluded such a man would have been satisfied the property was stolen, the law would attribute the same knowledge to the accused. It relieved the jury from the necessity of considering whether the circumstances under which the defendant received the property were such as to cause him to realize individually it was stolen, and permitted his conviction upon the jury’s determination of what an ordinarily prudent and cautious man would have done under the circumstances, without taking cognizance of the fact that there was nothing to show whether the accused possessed the prudence and caution of the one by whose actions his were tested. The question for the jury was not whether the facts would have given the ordinary person knowledge of the theft, but whether they had such effect upon the defendant himself with his understanding of their significance. Many people are not as cautious and prudent as the ordinary person, hence the circumstances might have meant knowledge to him, and nothing to the accused.” (229 P. at p. 937.) Other cases from other jurisdictions setting forth the same rule could be cited and we appreciate that other cases can be found in which its application is not so clear, The proper rule, it seems to us, is set forth in Perkins on Criminal Law (2d ed. 1969) at pages 940-941: “If no specific intent or other special mental element is required for guilt of the offense charged, a mistake of fact will not be recognized as an excuse unless it was based upon reasonable grounds... .[On the other hand, bjecause of the requirement of a specific intent to steal there is no such thing as larceny by negligence. One does not commit this offense by carrying away the chattel of another in the mistaken belief that it is his own, no matter how great may have been the fault leading to this belief, if the belief itself is genuine.”

La Fave and Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law (1972) sets forth at page 357 what the authors call the “. . .rather simple rule that an honest mistake of fact or law is a defense when it negates a required mental element of the crime . . . . ” As an example they refer to the crime of receiving stolen property, stating “... if the defendant by a mistake of either fact or law did not know the goods were stolen, even though the circumstances would have led a prudent man to believe they were stolen, he does not have the required mental state and thus may not be convicted of the crime.”

In the instant case the trial court in effect instructed the jury that even though defendant in good faith believed he had the right to *Supp. 11take the beams, and thus lacked the specific intent required for the crime of theft, he should be convicted unless such belief was reasonable. In doing so it erred.2 It is true that if the jury thought the defendant’s belief to be unreasonable, it might infer that he did not in good faith hold such belief. If, however, it concluded that defendant in good faith believed that he had the right to take the beams, even though such belief was unreasonable as measured by the objective standard of a hypothetical reasonable man, defendant was entitled to an acquittal since the specific intent required to be proved as an element of the offense had not been established.3

The People’s reliance on People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143 [125 Cal.Rptr. 745, 542 P.2d 1337] is misplaced. The discussion in that case involved the propriety of an instruction on mistake of fact in respect of charges of rape and kidnaping, general intent crimes, a different question from that here presented.

The judgment is reversed.

Cole, P. J., and Saeta, J., concurred.