Guilty Mind + Environ Crimes Flashcards
Balint facts
B found guilty for distributing medical opiate derivatives without right paperwork. Claimed didn’t know drugs covered under Narcotics Act
Balint statute
unlawful for any person to sell, give away any of the aforesaid drugs except in pursuance of a written order
Balint holding
B did not need to know he was violating the law
Balint reasoning
(1) statute didn’t have mens rea so Court applied SL
(2) in pursuance of public policy, specific acts don’t require knowledge element
(3) if in the drug selling business should look up law and make sure you are complying
Freed facts
F had unregistered hand grenades. Said no proof he knew unregistered
Freed statute
Unlawful to possess a firearm not registered to him
Freed holding
It is a general intent crime and therefore ignorance of the law no excuse
Freed reasoning
(1) doesn’t matter if he didn’t know they were unregistered all that is relevant is that he intended to take possession of the hand grenades
(2) Regulatory measure to promote public welfare
(3) possessing dangerous object should put someone on notice that they might commit a crime due to an error
(4) mens rea required in specific intent crimes but not in general intent
How is Freed different from Morissette
stealing common law crime NOT public welfare offense
Problem with Freed
CA prohibits hand grenade regardless of registration so is forcing him to register forcing to self-incriminate violating the 5A?
Morissette Factors for Public Welfare Offense
(1) seeks to protect public health, safety and welfare
(2) punish negligence/omissions
(3) addresses risk of injury vs. actual injury
(4) whether penalties big vs. small
(5) whether stigma attached to conviction
(6) whether law creates new crime or adopts CL crime
Public welfare offense is a ____ so should still ___
narrow carveout, presume mens rea
If law criminalizing something bad in itself, it probably ___
requires mens rea
If law punishes omissions/negligence, it is likely a ___
strict liability crime
If law addresses the risk of injury, probably a ___
strict liability
If penalties are ___ more likely to be SL
small
IMCC facts
IMCC transports acid around US but do not document it properly
IMCC Statute
whoever knowingly violates a regulation for safe transportation can be imprisoned
IMCC statute says each shipper offering for transportation any hazardous material shall ___
describe that article on the shipping paper
IMCC holding
Can be convicted of violating this law without knowing it exists
IMCC reasoning
Knowingly requires knowledge of circumstances leading to violating but NOT knowledge of law itself
Why does IMCC not require knowledge of law itself
(1) if you know you left out the info good enough don’t need to know doing so is illegal
(2) knowingly shipped acids without documentation
(3) should be on notice of regulations for dangerous materials
Staples facts
S owns semi automatic but it was modified it into an automatic weapon. No evidence he modified it himself, but he didn’t register it.
Staples holding
Must presume mens rea requirement –> Govt must prove he knew the gun has the features that make registration necessary
Staples reasoning
(1) fed criminal statutes require mens rea even when they don’t explicitly state it
(2) Otherwise if SL need to have clear congressional support
(3) normally SL lower penalties but here 10 years
(4) Having guns ordinary American activity so shouldn’t have SL for seemingly innocent activity
Staples criticism
Everyone knows regulations on rifles so could’ve argued person on notice
Mens rea checklist 1
What are elements of the crime? Conduct or result crime? Attendant circumstances
Mens rea checklist 2
Where is the ambiguity? What are the possible readings of the statute attaching mental state to each element? (Presume recklessness)
Mens rea checklist 3
Did Cong. intend strict liability? (Apply Morissette factors)
Mens rea checklist 4
Who and what does each reading criminalize? Does this reading criminalize innocent conduct/people?
Keep readings that convict non-innocent
Prosecution Friendly reading for knowingly
Moncini, Hamling
Prosecution Friendly reading for no mens rea supplied
Dean, PNT
Prosecution Friendly reading for mistake of law defense
Moncini
Prosecution Friendly reading for willfully
Bryan
Prosecution Friendly reading for public welfare offenses
Balint, Freed, IMCC
Defendant-friendly reading for knowingly
X Citement, Liparota
Defendant-friendly reading for no mens rea supplied
Elonis (subjective intent required)
Defendant-friendly reading for mistake of law defense
Lambert, Liparota
Defendant-friendly reading for willfully
Ratzlaf, Cheek
Defendant-friendly reading for public welfare crimes
Staples
Weitzenhoff facts
Ds pumped sludge directly into the ocean (in excess of permit allotment)
Weitzenhoff statute
Felony to knowingly violate [CWA] or any permit condition
Weitzenhoff holding
conviction affirmed –> as long as Ds knew they were polluting that was enough
Weitzenhoff reasoning
(1) knowingly refers just to knowing they were doing the action (not they know CWA section violating)
(2) dumping of sewage precisely type of activity that puts discharger on notice that his acts may pose a public danger
Weitzenhoff dissent
Dilutes traditional requirement of criminal state of mind and reduces moral authority crim law
Prison shouldn’t be use to achieve social goals regardless of moral innocence
Hanousek facts
H manager in a railroad company. A contractor working under him failed to properly protect the pipeline and oil discharged into the river. Charged with negligently discharging harmful quantity of oil into water under CWA
Hanousek holding
A public welfare statute may subject a person to criminal liability for ordinary negligence (vs. criminal negligence) without violating due process
Hanousek reasoning
(1) CWA doesn’t define negligence so use ordinary meaning of negligence
(2) public welfare offenses meant to protect public from harmful items and criminalize conduct that a reasonable person should know is subject to strict regulation
Hanousek dissent
CWA shouldnt be PWO because large penalty (1-2 years prison, 5-50K) + opens up heightened criminal liability to a broad range of ordinary commercial activities
Hong facts
Avion violated discharge permit by discharging untreated waste water directly into the sewer system. H charged as responsible corporate officer
Hong statute
Any person who negligently violates pretreatment requirements (includes any responsible corporate officers)
Hong holding
H was a responsible corporate officer
Hong reasoning
doesn’t need to have caused the violating through wrongful action, he caused it through substantially controlling corporate operations
