Consider the following cases, and select the case that would be most closely applicable as a precedent to the scenario in question State v$.$ Mehan. Defendant is charged with the illegal sale and transfer of a firearm to White, who had previously been convicted of bribery $($a felony$).$ At trial, Mehan admitted to selling the pistol to White, but stated that he was unaware of the statute which prohibited sale of firearms to a convicted felon. Furthermore, defendant knew White had been convicted of bribery which he mistakenly believed to be a misdemeanor. Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.State v$.$ Bosley. Defendant is charged with the offense of selling intoxicating beverages to a minor in violation of the jurisdiction's statute. At trial, Bosley admitted selling two bottles of rum to Jimmy Black, aged fifteen. Bosley testified that he believed Jimmy to be above the statutory drinking age of eighteen. In fact, Jimmy admitted telling Bosley that he was eighteen years of age and from his physical appearance, Jimmy looked to be $"$of age." Defendant was found GUILTY.State v$.$ Dennis. After dining one evening at the local diner, Dennis accidentally removed another patron's raincoat from the diner's entrance hall. The owner of the raincoat saw Dennis leaving with "his raincoat," and notified the owner, who promptly called the police. Dennis was charged with larceny. Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.State vs$.$ Redburn. Reburn is charged with the statutory rape of Lucy, aged sixteen, in a jurisdiction's age of consent is eighteen. Defendant admitted that he and Lucy were attending a party on the evening in question and that she consented to having sexual intercourse with him. Rebburn further testified that he mistakenly believed that the legal age of consent was sixteen. Defendant was found GUILTY.The State of Jacksonia required the issuance of a permit by the Secretary of State before any "securities may be sold to the public." Richard, the director of a development company, desiring to sell certain real estate interests, sought the advice of the Secretary of State. The Secretary informed Richard that his company's property interests were not subject to the state's Securities Act. Richard then proceeded to offer his company's real estate interests for sale to a number of interested buyers. It is later determined that Richard's company's real estate interests were, in fact, "securities" within the statutory provisions of the Securities Act. Richard is charged with violation of the "securities statute." Which case precedent is most analogous to these facts?