Guilty Mind (2) Flashcards
Dean facts
D robbed a bank while carrying a gun and firearm discharged. D seemed surprised
Dean statute
Any person who during any crime of violence uses or carries a firearm. shall if brandished get at least 7 years, if discharged not less than 10 years
Dean holding
No requirement that D intended to discharge the firearm
Dean reasoning
(1) No mental state in statute so what did Cong. intend
(2) Already committing a robbery so okay to punish for unintended consequence
Dean says that brandished is a ____
passive voice, emphasizing lack of intent requirement
Why was it okay to punish for unintended consequences of robbery in Dean
(1) robbery prereq to sentence enhancement
(2) rare to punish individual for unintentional conduct BUT it is common to punish for unintended consequences of unlawful conduct in commission of violent crime
(3) criminal should bear risk of harm resulting from violent crime even if specific consequence not intended
(4) analogous to felony murder (already have guilty mind)
Dean Stevens dissent
accidents causing no harm should not give rise to a felony
Elonis facts
E posted violent language about his estranged wife on his rap persona’s FB page. Said he didn’t intend to threaten anyone
Elonis statute
An individual who “transmits in interstate commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the person of another
Elonis holding
Statute implicitly requires subjective awareness
Elonis reasoning
(1) find mens rea that separates wrongful from innocent conduct for the crime
(2) requirement for crim some awareness of wrongdoing
(3) reject reading that if someone feels threatened it is a threat
Why does Elonis say that not enough if someone feels threatened
trying to avoid hypersensitive victims (want more than negligence standard), might convict people unaware of social norms
Four components of official interpretation of the law defense
(1) reasonably relied on
(2) an official interpretation of the law
(3) later determined to be erroneous
(4) contained in a statute or other enactment or obtained from person/body responsible for the interpretation
Marrero facts
M was federal corrections officer who brought unregistered pistol into a club. Said he relied on his interpretation of the statute which was that “any correctional facility” included federal facilities
Marrero statute
prohibition on weapons doesn’t apply any guard/official of state prison or any penal correctional institution
Marrero defndant argues that statute itself is ___
official statement/interpretation of the law
Marrero holding
mistake of law defense not available
Marrero reasoning
(1) statute applied only to state officers
(2) one who violates a statute cannot raise a good faith mistaken belief as to meaning of law as defense
(3) If statute itself official statement where would exceptions apply
(4) if allow this would encourage people to misconstrue laws
Why Marrero doesn’t want to say RP would ask attorneys
worried about collusion
Lambert facts
L arrested on suspicion for another offense but then charged with failure to register. Had been in LA 7+ years and said no knowledge of requirement
Lambert statute
Unlawful for any convicted person to remain in LA longer than 5 days a month w/o registering
Lambert definition of convicted
someone convicted of felony in CA or any offense that in CA would be a felony
Lambert holding
Need actual knowledge of duty to register or proof of the probability of any such knowledge and failure to comply before convicting under this ordinance
Lambert reasoning
(1) conduct punished is passive (omission)
(2) Due process requires notice but here no constructive or actual notice
Why no notice in Lambert
(1) nothing about prescence in LA indicates you should register
(2) Much broader than sex offender registry law
(3) Once L made aware of registration requirement so didn’t have opportunity to comply just arrested
(4) due process imposes some limits on the maxim
(5) Not showing any lack of moral knowledge
Lambert says the entire point of the law is ___ not ___
convenience for city officials, preventing/punishing inherent badness
Lambert dissent
strict liability statute so no need for notice
Liparota facts
L bought food stamps for below market value in back room in private
Liparota statute
whoever knowingly uses, acquires food stamps in any matter not authorized (including from another individual)
Liparota holding
Govt must prove that he knew his acquisition was in manner prohibited
Liparota has a __ view allowing for __
narrow, mistake of law defense
Liparota says ____ evidence counts
indirect (hidden exchanges, paying less than its worth, nontransferable marking)
Why does indirect evidence count in Liparota
evidence knew he was doing something wrong
Cheek facts
D, part of anti-tax group, stopped filing federal tax returns. Argued believed he didn’t owe any taxes and if he did uncon.
Cheek statute
Any person who willfully attempts to evade any tax, shall be guilty of a felony
Cheek issue
Must a good faith misunderstanding of the law be objectively reasonable to negate the specific intent requirement
Cheek holding
No, govt must prove that the law imposed duty on D + D knew duty + voluntarily/intentionally avoided that duty
Cheek says there is no requirement that ___
good faith mistakes be reasonable under tax law
Cheek reasoning
(1) complexity of tax law makes it difficult for citizens to keep up so requires specific intent
(2) not morally loaded conduct
(3) reasonable belief not required but judge/jury less likely to find D didn’t know of duty if that belief is unreasonable
Cheek says that while ignorance of law is no excuse, some laws are ____ and ____
more difficult to know/understand, leg tries to take care of this problem by inserting willfulness requirement
Ratzlaf facts
R had 160k in gambling debt, returned with 100K in cash but would told casino would have to notify authorities for any cash over 10K so visited many banks and got many cashier’s checks under the limit
Ratzlaf statute
No person shall for the purpose of evading currency reporting requirements structure any transaction.. person willfully violating this law can be guilty
Ratzlaf holding
Govt must prove D knew structuring transactions is illegal
Ratzlaf reasoning
(1) narrow reading because currency reporting requirements not morally loaded
(2) willfully often interpreted as knowledge of and intent to break the law (impose additional element to crime)
Bryan facts
B used straw purchasers in Ohio to buy guns, filed off serial numbers and then sold guns on Brooklyn streets. Said didn’t know specific federal legislation he was violating
Bryan statute
unlawful for any person except a licensed person to engage in the business of dealing in firearms…to knowingly import and to willfully violate any other provisions
Bryan holding
Can be convicted for willfully selling –> D must have knowledge that his conduct is unlawful but need not know specific statute he is violating
Bryan reasoning
B knew what he was doing was unlawful regardless of what statute he was violating
