CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Brief Fact Summary. Defendant was a junk dealer who took old bomb casings that had been lying unused at an Air Force practice bombing range and sold them for a profit. Defendant was subsequently indicted and convicted of violating a statute that made it a crime to knowingly convert government property but that made no mention of intent.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The mere omission from the language of the statute of any mention of intent is not to be construed as eliminating the element of intent from the crime.
Issue. Did the court err in instructing the jury that the statute required a showing of intent to take the property rather than a showing that Defendant had knowledge of the fact that the property had not been abandoned by its owner?
Held. Yes. Judgment reversed.
Defendant must be proven to have had knowledge of the fact that the property had not been abandoned by the owner in order to establish the requisite intent.
The mere omission from the statute of any mention of intent will not be construed as eliminating intent as one of the elements of the crime.
Intent is inherent in the class of offenses in which stealing and its equivalents are included, regardless of whether a requirement of intent is expressed in a statute. Larceny type offences are well rooted and defined in early common law and, the congressional laws merely adopt these offenses into statutory law. Therefore Congressional silence, with regard to mental elements in the Act, warrant a different interpretation than congressional silence in creating new offences where the courts’ only guidance is the statutory language.
The Supreme Court also distinguishes the limited class of public welfare offenses in which courts have discontinued inquiry into intent from the case at bar.
The prevalent modern philosophy of penology is that the punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime.View Full Point of Law