Statutory Silence on Mens Rea

Question 1

Steps for determining mens rea

Answer 1

1. Look to legislative intent of silence in statute
   • Prosecutors argue silence means strict liability
   • Did legislature intend mens rea?
   • Courts generally assume that if the statute is codified common law, the common law mens rea carries over to the statute, even if silent
2. If statute is a common law codification, or cousin of common law codified, go back to common law to discern how terms are defined
3. If it’s a new crime with no precedent?
   • Prosecution will push for S/L
   • Court will ask if the crime is intended to be regulatory or “public welfare crime,” with small penalties, and crime isn’t infamous
   • If so, it may apply S/L
   • If not,

Question 2

Morisette

Answer 2

1. Land used as Air Force practice bombing range, left spent casings there in heaps. Morissette went in area to hunt, salvaged 3 tons of spent casings and got $84 for them. Thought the property was abandoned (intended to take it)
2. Statute - – embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use…anything of value of the US
3. Mistake claim- he knew he was taking those things, but believed they were abandoned and no longer property of US (therefore did NOT have mens rea for “anything of value” element)
4. Question of what was the mental state required to convict him of conversion because the statute was silent as to mental state

Question 3

Strict Liability and Statutory Silence

Answer 3

If statute is silent and it is a public welfare offense – strict liability (super deterrence) (usually doing something that endangers public as a whole, purpose is to deter and protect)

Question 4

US v. Dotterweich

Answer 4

STRICT LIABILITY: president of a company that bought drugs from manufacturers and repackaged them and shipped them under a new label, strict liability for shipping adultered/misbranded drug, no requirement of awareness of wrongdoing

Question 5

US v. Park

Answer 5

STRICT LIABILITY: company shipped food that had been contaminated by rodents, strict liability, want to punish neglect where there was a duty, positive duty to seek out and remedy violations and to implement measures that will ensure violations don’t happen

Question 6

Balint (cited in Morisette)

Answer 6

STRICT LIABILITY: Must file IRS form to distribute legal narcotics. He didn’t and claimed that he didn’t know statute existed (ignorance of law excuse fails) and he didn’t know opium was considered a narcotic under statute (mistake of law fails). Court held that it was strict liability anyways.

Question 7

US v. Freed – mistake of fact and strict liability

Answer 7

STRICT LIABILITY:

1. Statute – unlawful to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him
2. D indicted for possession of unregistered hand grenades, statute silent as to intent/knowledge that the hand grenades were unregistered. Only knowledge requirement was that possession was of a firearm
3. Freed’s claim was that he thought he registered
4. Said that the “not registered to him” element was strict liability
5. In the interest of public safety, not surprising that its not an innocent act

Question 8

Staples v. US – mistake of fact and NO strict liability

Answer 8

1. Failed to register a machine gun under same statute
2. Silent as to the mental state, don’t know if defendant is required to know the facts that make his conduct illegal
3. He knew it was a firearm, but didn’t know it possessed the factual characteristics that would bring it under the statute (didn’t know it had automatic firing capability)
4. District court said they didn’t have to prove he knew that the weapon had every characteristic of the statute, just that he knew it was dangerous
5. SCOTUS disagreed, statute required that D know the characteristics requiring classification of the weapon as a machine gun, knowledge element, know what makes his conduct illegal
6. The severe penalty (10 years in prison) proved further that Congress didn’t mean to get rid of the mens rea