Angiulo: First Circuit Reviews What it Takes to Commit a Crime

Email to a friend Permalink

Monday, April 18, 2016

Leonardo Angiulo, GoLocalWorcester Legal Contributor

There are so many ways to describe how a person can find themselves in trouble. You could be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or have fallen in with a bad crowd, or even just made an honest mistake.  However, to truly have committed a crime you usually have to do something more than just be at the scene when an illegal event occurs.  

 In our system of justice, crimes are defined by statutes.  What this means is that if your behavior meets a definition then you will punished. Sometimes in the process of writing a law, Congress will fail to include a mental state as one of the elements.  The result is that a statute will look like it criminalizes what could be otherwise be innocent behavior.

An example of this is the theory of criminal liability known as “aiding and abetting.” According to the way that law is written, if you contribute to a crime being committed by a third party you may be punished as if you did the crime itself.  The plain language of that law makes it seem like it applies no matter what.  For example, it appears as though an innocent mistake could be a crime under this law.  A recent case from the First Circuit Court of Appeals explains why this isn't so.    

In U.S. v. Ford  a woman was charged with a number of crimes involving a criminal enterprise allegedly organized by her husband. The allegations included a multi-state marijuana growing operation.  Also included in the federal indictment was Ms. Ford's allegedly criminal act of permitting her husband to use a rifle for target practice.  The problem, according the case, was that Mr. Ford had previously been convicted of a felony and was ineligible to possess a firearm.

The prosecution's theory was that Ms. Ford had aided and abetted her husband's criminal possession of the gun because she let him use it.  At trial, however, the Government brought limited evidence about whether she knew about that prior conviction.  The question for the appeals court was whether, or not, her knowledge was required for her to be convicted.

In deciding this question, the Appeals Court looked at the traditional role of mental state in crimes.  In our system of justice, the standard rule is that a defendant must know the facts that make his conduct illegal.  While there are some limited exceptions to this basic principle, it is the rule.  The court went on to observe that this rule applies even if a statute doesn't mention it.  While ignorance of the law may not be an excuse, ignorance of the facts may be.  

Consider that the criminal laws are designed to punish people for making the wrong choice when deciding between right and wrong. This basic idea is why the insanity defense will excuse behavior and why a true mistake is a defense at trial.  We do not traditionally punish people unless they have knowingly done something wrong.  

Leonardo Angiulo is an Attorney in the city of Worcester handling legal matters across the Commonwealth. He can be reached by email at [email protected] and found on the web at www.angiulolaw.com

---

Related Slideshow: 25 Massachusetts Cities and Towns with Highest Hate Crime Rates Per Capita

Related Articles

• Angiulo: American Civilians Injured Abroad Have Limited Options
• Angiulo: Drug Dependent Defendants Have Options
• Angiulo: Arbitration Requirements, Consumer Protection & the Supreme Court
• Angiulo: Taking Immigrants Into Custody
• Angiulo: What Happens When a Witness has a Sealed Record?
• Angiulo: Defamation, Opinions, and Rock n Roll
• Angiulo: House Judiciary Committe Reports Out Sentencing Reform Act of 2015
• Angiulo: Custody of Refugees Without Parents
• Angiulo: Further Refining Parental Discipline Standards in MA
• Angiulo: Involuntary Commitment for Drug & Alcohol Abuse in MA
• Angiulo: Law Enforcement, Qualified Immunity and Use of Force
• Angiulo: Defining the Law for Misdemeanor Arrests
• Angiulo: When a Member of the Public is Injured on Your Property
• Angiulo: Supreme Court Explains Why Government Must Turn Over Evidence to Defendants
• Angiulo: The Difference Between Bad Parenting & Criminal Acts
• Angiulo: The Internet, Free Speech, and Escorts
• Angiulo: Massachusetts, The Supreme Court, & the Second Amendment
• Angiulo: Sup Ct Proves Some Things are Beyond Politics
• Angiulo: Marital Privilege May Keep Spouses out of the Witness Box
• Angiulo: First Circuit Reviews Denial of Mental Health Benefits
• Angiulo: Personal Injury Claims, Liens, and the Supreme Court
• Angiulo: Sup. Ct. Says U.S. Juveniles Serving Life Without Parole Eligible for Review
• Angiulo: Unintended, Tragic, Consequences of Intentional Acts
• Angiulo: Questioning the Reliabilty of Eyewitness Identifications
• Angiulo: Real Estate Investments, Buildable Lots, and Zoning By-Laws

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Email to a friend Permalink