Which statement correctly describes the effect of relying on an Attorney General opinion interpreting a statute?

Which statement correctly describes the effect of relying on an Attorney General opinion interpreting a statute?

• A. It is not a defense.
• B. It is an affirmative defense only if the opinion was binding on the court.
• C. It is an affirmative defense if the defendant relied upon such an opinion.
• D. It is a defense only if the opinion was issued after the offense.

Answer: (C)

Relying in good faith on an official interpretation: when someone acts in accordance with an Attorney General’s opinion interpreting a statute, that reliance can be an affirmative defense. The idea is that if the statute is unclear and a trusted official interpretation explains how the law should apply, punishing the person for following that interpretation would be unfair. Because it’s an affirmative defense, the defendant must present evidence that they relied on the AG opinion in good faith and that the opinion was applicable to their conduct. If the reliance is reasonable and fits what they did, the defense can excuse the alleged violation. The opinion’s binding nature on the court isn’t the deciding factor—the defense can apply based on reasonable reliance even if the opinion isn’t binding precedent. Similarly, the defense isn’t limited to opinions issued after the offense; an applicable, pre-offense or contemporaneous opinion can support the defense if relied upon.

Relying in good faith on an official interpretation: when someone acts in accordance with an Attorney General’s opinion interpreting a statute, that reliance can be an affirmative defense. The idea is that if the statute is unclear and a trusted official interpretation explains how the law should apply, punishing the person for following that interpretation would be unfair. Because it’s an affirmative defense, the defendant must present evidence that they relied on the AG opinion in good faith and that the opinion was applicable to their conduct. If the reliance is reasonable and fits what they did, the defense can excuse the alleged violation. The opinion’s binding nature on the court isn’t the deciding factor—the defense can apply based on reasonable reliance even if the opinion isn’t binding precedent. Similarly, the defense isn’t limited to opinions issued after the offense; an applicable, pre-offense or contemporaneous opinion can support the defense if relied upon.