Really? Can you give me an example of a state that has a "possession of stolen property" law, and that "knowledge" the property is stolen is NOT a requisite element of the statute?
Surely you're smart enough to recognize that the statutory wording you quoted is a good example of knowledge [the item is stolen] being a required element of the crime, and that the language of the law clearly means "no such knowledge" = no crime.
Now, the question of whether or not the accused had such knowledge is not a "matter of law", but rather a "matter of fact". So it would ultimately be up to a jury to decide if the accused knew (or should have known) the property in question was stolen. In any event, none of this is even remotely related to Nick's misunderstanding the statement, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".
TW
