Is a mistake of law a defense in a sexual assault case where the victim was not a minor?

⁵ We recognize that mistake of law can be a valid defense to a specific intent crime where the mistake negates the specific intent. (People v. Howard (1984) 36 Cal.3d 852, 862863, 206 Cal.Rptr. 124, 686 P.2d 644 ) That is not the case here. Section 288.3 requires that defendant knew the victim was "a minor." That is simply a requirement that he knew the victim was under the age of 18. Section 288.3 also requires the specific intent to commit the target crime. Section 289, subdivision (h), the target crime in this case, does not use the term "minor," but instead prohibits participating in sexual penetration with "a person who is under 18 years of age." Defendant's mistaken belief about the applicability of Indiana law could not negate that specific intent requirement.