A kidnapping statute in State A makes it a crime for a person, including a parent, to "take a child from the custody of his custodial parent, knowing he has no privilege to do so." After a bitter court battle Ann and Dave were divorced and Ann was given custody of their daughter, Maria. Dave later moved to State B where he brought an action to obtain custody of Maria. A local judge awarded him custody. His attorney incorrectly advised him that, under this award, he was entitled to take Maria away from Ann. Dave drove to State A, picked Maria up at her preschool, and took her back to State B with him. He was indicted for kidnapping in State A, extradited from State B, and tried. At trial, he testified that he had relied on his attorney's advice in taking Maria, and that at the time he believed his conduct was not illegal. If the jury believes his testimony, Dave should be 
acquitted, because he acted on the advice of an attorney.  acquitted, because he lacked a necessary mental element of the crime.  convicted, because reliance on an attorney's advice is not a defense.  convicted, provided a reasonable person (D) convicted, provided a reasonable person would have known that the attorney's advice was erroneous. 
Question: A kidnapping statute in State A makes it a crime for a person, including a parent, to "take a child from the custody of his custodial parent, knowing he has no privilege to do so." After a bitter court battle Ann and Dave were divorced and Ann was given custody of their daughter, Maria. Dave later moved to State B where he brought an action to obtain custody of Maria. A local judge awarded him custody. His attorney incorrectly advised him that, under this award, he was entitled to take Maria away from Ann. Dave drove to State A, picked Maria up at her preschool, and took her back to State B with him. He was indicted for kidnapping in State A, extradited from State B, and tried. At trial, he testified that he had relied on his attorney's advice in taking Maria, and that at the time he believed his conduct was not illegal. If the jury believes his testimony, Dave should be 
A. acquitted, because he acted on the advice of an attorney. 
B. acquitted, because he lacked a necessary mental element of the crime. 
C. convicted, because reliance on an attorney's advice is not a defense. 
D. convicted, provided a reasonable person (D) convicted, provided a reasonable person would have known that the attorney's advice was erroneous. 
Answer: