Lambert v. California (1956)
- Docket
- 47
- Decided
- 1956-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Did Lambert’s conviction under the ordinance without notice violate the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause? Conclusion: In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice William Douglas, the Court held that the prosecution would need to provide circumstantial evidence showing that the defendant should have been aware of the possibility that registration was required. The Court reasoned that due process requires notice unless the defendant has actual knowledge of the ordinance that has been violated. As there was no circumstantial evidence showing Lambert should have been aware of the ordinance, the Court concluded her due process rights were violated. The Court further held that because the ordinance that forced convicted felons to register was not accompanied by any action, nor were there circumstances that would lead a felon to be aware of his or her duty to register, the ordinance was unconstitutional. Justice Felix Frankfurter dissented, joined by Justices Harlan and Whittaker, arguing that mistake of law is usually not a defense to a crime. For example, a person may be convicted of drug possession even if he or she did not know that the particular substance was illegal. Justice Harold Burton also dissented in a separate opinion.